Book 



LETTERS 



TO THE 

REY. WM. E. CHANNING, 



CONTAINING 



REMARKS ON HIS SERMON, 



RECENTLY 



PREACHED AND PUBLISHED AT BALTIMORE, 



BY MOSES STUART, 

.ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY, ANDOVER. 



ANDOVER : 

PUBLISHED BY FLAGG AND GOULD. 
1819. 



LETTER I 



Reverend and Dear Sir, 

I have recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at 
the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks, in Baltimore, with 
no small degree of interest. The subjects of which it 
treats must be regarded as highly important, by every 
intelligent man, who is a serious inquirer after revealed 
truth. And if the views which you have developed will 
stand the test of examination, and prove to be those 
which the word of God maintains, or which it will 
justify ; it certainly will be the duty of every friend to 
Christianity, to embrace and promote them. 

I have endeavoured to read and reflect upon your 
Sermon, without prejudice or party feeling; and to weigh 
the arguments, and examine the views which it presents, 
with a wish to know and believe the truth. I dare not 
flatter myself, indeed, that I have entirely succeeded in 
doing this ; for every man who is acquainted with his 
own heart, will find reason to believe, that he often has 
been, and may be deceived by it. Will you permit me, 
however, to lay before you my thoughts in regard to 
three topics of your discourse, which stand in close con- 
nexion with each other, and which are among the prin- 
cipal points, wherein I feel myself compelled to dissent 
from your opinions ? 



4 



The points to which I refer are ; The principles of 
interpreting Scripture; The unity of God; and the 
divinity and humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to 
these three, because it would make a book and not a 
pamphlet, to examine all the statements of doctrines 
which you have made, (and to write a book would re- 
quire time and health which 1 have not to spare ;) and 
because, if the principles of reasoning and the results 
which you deduce from them, in regard to some of the 
points on which I am about to remark, are incorrect, or 
untenable, the influence of this must extend itself essen- 
tially, to most of the remaining topics, w r hich you have 
presented. 

The general principles of interpreting Scripture, you 
designate in the following manner. 

M We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive rev- 
elations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect rev- 
elation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us 
to be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we receive without reserve or 
exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the 
books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the 
New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of 
Jesus, we consider as imperfect, earthry, obscure, adapted to the 
childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and 
chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian 
Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and what- 
ever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired 
apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the 
rule of our lives. 

" This authority which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason, we 
conceive, for studying* them with peculiar care, and for inquiring 
anxiously into the principles of interpretation, by which their true 
meaning may be ascertained. The principles adopted by the class 
of Christians, in whose name I speak, need to be explained, because 
they are often misunderstood. We are particularly accused of mak- 
ing an unwarrantable use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture. 
We are said to exalt reason above revelation, to prefer our own wis- 
dom to God's. Loose and undefined charges of this kind are circu- 
lated so freely, and. with such injurious intentions, that we think it 
due to ourselves, and to the cause of truth, to express our views with 
some particularity. 



5 



w Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the 
Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that 
its meaning is to be sought in the same manner, as that of other 
books. We believe that God, when he condescends to speak and 
write, submits, if we may so say, to the established rules of speaking 
and writing. How else would the Scriptures avail us more than if 
communicated in an unknown tongue ? 

" Now all books, and all conversation-, require in the reader or 
hearer the constant exercise of reason ; or their true import is only 
to be obtained by continual comparison and inference. Human lan- 
guage, you well know, admits various interpretations, and every word 
and every sentence must be modified and explained according to the 
subject which is discussed, according to the purposes, feelings, cir- 
cumstances and principles of the writer, and according to the genius 
and idioms of the language which he uses. — These are acknowledged 
principles in the interpretation of human writings ; and a man, whose 
words we should explain without reference to these principles, would 
reproach us justly with a criminal want of candour, and an intention 
of obscuring or distorting his meaning. 

u w ere the Bible written in a language and style of its own, did it 
consist of words, which admit but a single sense, and of sentences 
wholly detached from each other, there would be no place for the 
principles now laid down. We could not reason about it, as about 
other writings. But such a book would be of little worth ; and per- 
haps, of all books, the Scriptures correspond least to this description. 
The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand, which we see in 
his works. It has infinite connexions and dependencies. Every 
proposition is linked with others, and is to be compared with others, 
that its full and precise import may be understood. Nothing stands 
alone. The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian 
dispensation is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast 
scheme of providence, requiring great extent of view in the reader. 
Still more, the Bible treats cf subjects on which we receive ideas 
from other sources besides itself ; such subjects as the nature, pas- 
sions, relations, and duties of man ; and it expects us to restrain and 
modify its language by the known truths, which observation and, ex- 
perience furnish on these topicks. 

" We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent 
exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now 
made on its infinite connexions, we may observe, that its style no 
where affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition. 
Its language is singularly glowing, bold and figurative, demanding 
more frequent departures from the literal sense, than that of our own 
age and county, and consequently demands more continual exercise 
of judgment. We find too, that the different portions of this book, 
instead of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the 
times when they were written, to states of society, to modes of think- 
ing, to controversies in the church, to feelings and usages which 
have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are cen~ 



6 



stantly in danger of extending to all tunes, and places, what was oi 
temporary and local application. We find, too, that some of these 
books are strongly marked by the genius and character of their re- 
spective writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so guide the apostles as 
to suspend the peculiarities of their minds, and that a knowledge of 
their feelings, and of the influences under which they were placed, 
is one of the preparations for understanding their writings. With 
these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our 
reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the 
letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim 
of the writer, his true meaning ; and, in general, to make use of 
what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering 
new truths. 

" Need I descend to particulars to prove that the Scriptures de- 
mand the exercise of reason ? Take, for example, the style in which 
they generally speak of God, and observe how habitually they apply 
to him human passions and organs. Recollect the declarations of 
Christ, that he came not to send peace, but a sword ; that unless we 
eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have no life in us ; that we 
must hate father and mother : pluck out the right eye ; and a vast 
number of passages equally bold and unlimited. Recollect the un- 
qualified manner in which it is said of Christians that they possess all 
things, know all things, and can do all things. Recollect the verbal 
contradiction between Paul and James, and the apparent clashing of 
some parts of Paul's writings, with the general doctrines and end of 
Christianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely, and who 
does not see, that we must limit all these passages by the known at- 
tributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by the cir- 
cumstances under which the}' were written, so as to give the language 
a quite different import from what it would require, had it been ap- 
plied to different beings, or used in different connexions. 

" Enough has been said to show in what sense we make use of rea- 
son in interpreting Scripture. From a variety of possible interpreta- 
tions, we select that which accords with the nature of the subject, and 
the state of the writer, with the connexion of the passage, with the 
general strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God, 
and with the obvious and acknowledged laws of nature. In other 
words, we believe that God never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, 
what he teaches in another ; and never contradicts, in revelation, what 
he teaches in his works and providence. And we, therefore, distrust 
every interpretation, which, after deliberate attention, seems repug- 
nant to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely as 
civilians do about the constitution under which we live ; who, you 
know, are accustomed to limit one provision of that venerable instru- 
ment by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts by inquiring 
into its general spirit, into the intentions of its authors, and into the 
prevalent feelings, impressions, and circumstances of the time when it 
was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly 
acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority of the Scrip- 



nires. Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its 
enemies." pp. 3 — 6. 

To a great part of these principles, I give my cheer- 
ful and most cordial assent. They are the principles 
which I apply to the explanation of the Scriptures, from 
day to day, in my private studies and in my public la- 
bours. They are the principles, by which I am con- 
ducted to the opinions that I have espoused; and by 
which, so far as I am able, I expect to defend these 
opinions, whenever called in duty to do it. 

While I thus give my general and cordial approba- 
tion to most that has been presented, in the extract 
above ; will you indulge me in expressing a wish, that 
the rank and value of the Old Testament, in the Chris- 
tian's library, had been described in somewhat different 
terms ? I do most fully accord with the idea, that the 
gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than the 
Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament, in a compara- 
tive sense. On what other ground, can the assertions of 
Paul, in 2 Cor. hi, in IJeb. vm, and in other places, be 
believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view, 
than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and our destiny; 
of the objects of our hopes and fears ; of the character 
of God and the way of salvation. I agree fully, that what- 
ever in the Old Testament respects the Jews, simply as 
Jews ; such as their ritual, their food, their dress, their 
civil polity, their government ; in one word, whatever 
from its nature w r as national and local, is not binding upon 
us under the Christian dispensation. I am well satisfied 
too, that the character of God, and the duty of men, 
were, in many respects, less clearly revealed under the 
ancient dispensation, " The law came by Moses ;"— 
yet " no man hath seen God at any time ; the only be- 



8 



gotten, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, He 
hath revealed him i. e., it was reserved for Christ to 
make a full display of the divine character; no man 
ever had such knowledge of God as enabled him to do 
it. I am aware that many Christians do not seem to un- 
derstand this passage ; and with well meaning but mis- 
taken views, deduce the character and designs of God, 
as fully and as clearly from the Old Testament, as from 
the New. 

I must believe too, that the duties of Christians are, 
in most things, more fully and definitely taught in the 
gospel, than in the Old Testament ; and I cannot ap- 
prove of that method of reasoning, which deduces our 
duties principally from texts in the Old Testament, that 
sometimes are less clear, when the New Testament pre- 
sents the subject in such characters of light, that he who 
runneth may read. 

But when you say, " Jesus Christ is the only master 
of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his 
personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard 
as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of 
our lives does not this naturally imply, that we are 
absolved from any obligation to receive the Old Testa- 
ment, in any sense, as our guide ; and that what it teach- 
es, we are not bound " to make the rule of our lives ?'•' 
I do not feel certain that it was your design to affirm 
this ; but the words in their connexipn seem naturally to 
bear this import. To this view, I should object ; that 
such parts of the Old Testament as express the will of 
God, in reference to those great points of duty that must, 
from the nature of moral beings, be forever the same 
under every dispensation, may and ought to be regarded 
as unrepealed : for it is a very sound maxim in the in- 



9 



terpretation of divine as well as human laws, that ma~ 
nenie ratione, manet ipsa lex ; A law is unrepealed, while 
the reason of that law continues. The case of an express 
repeal only, can exempt from the application of this 
maxim. And when our Saviour says, that " Heaven and 
earth shall sooner pass away, than one jot or tittle of 
the law shall pass, until all be fulfilled ;" he seems to 
me plainly to have declared the immutability of the an- 
cient moral law, in the sense already explained. 

What shall we say, moreover, to the devotional parts 
of the Old Testament, (the book of Psalms for instance;) 
or those numerous prophetical parts, which are sermons 
on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions of a 
future Messiah and of the nature and prosperity of his 
church? Are these any more Jewish (except as to the 
garb in which they are clothed,) than Christian ? I ad- 
mit that they are all less perfect, than what the New 
Testament presents us with, on the same topics ; but I 
believe them to be sanctioned by the same authority, and 
to require a similar respect and deference. 

As to what follows, in the passage above quoted ; 
nothing is clearer to my apprehension, than that God, 
when he speaks to men, speaks in language which is used 
by those whom he addresses. Of course, the language 
of the Bible is to be interpreted by the same laws, so far 
as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. I 
ask with you ; How else is the Bible a Revelation? How 
else can men ever come to agree in what manner the 
Scriptures should be interpreted, or feel any assurance 
that they have attained to the meaning of its language ? 

I find little from which I should dissent, in the re- 
mainder of your observations upon the principles of 
interpretation. I might, perhaps, make some objection 
2 



10 



to the manner in which the office of reason, in the inter- 
pretation of Scripture, is occasionally described. But I 
am confident, that I admit as fully as you do or can do, 
the proper office of reason, in the whole matter of reli- 
gion, both in doctrine and practice. It is our reason, to 
which the arguments that prove the divine origin of 
Christianity are addressed ; and by reason, that we 
prove or admit this, as to its general historical grounds. 
Reason prescribes, (or at any rate developes and sanc- 
tions,) the laws of interpreting Scripture. The cases 
which you have presented are, in general, striking ex- 
emplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied that 
the Bible is the book of God, by proof which she can- 
not reject, and yet preserve her character ; and when 
she has decided what laws of exegesis the nature of hu- 
man language requires ; the office that remains for her 
in regard to the Scripture, is the application of those 
laws to the actual interpretation of the Bible. When by 
their application, she becomes satisfied what the sacred 
writers really meant in any case, she receives it without 
hesitation whether doctrine or precept. It is the 
highest office of reason to believe facts or doctrines, 
which God has asserted to be true, although the man- 
ner in which these things exist, or can be explained, is 
beyond her reach. In one word; the Scriptures being 
once admitted to be the word of God, or as of divine 
authority ; the sole office of reason in respect to them 
is to act as the interpreter of Revelation, and not in 
any case as legislator. It is limited to judging of the 
laws of exegesis, and the application of them, in order 
to discover simply what the sacred writers meant to as- 
sert. This being discovered, it is either to be received, 
in that simple state in which they have left it ; or their 



11 



divine authority is to be rejected, and we are to cast off 
our obligation to believe all which they assert. There 
is no alternative ; no middle way, in this case. Philoso- 
phy has no right to interfere here. If she ever inter- 
feres, it must be when the question is pending, whether 
the Bible is divine. Nor has system, prejudice, secta- 
rian feeling, or any thing whatever of a similar nature — 
neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy, so called, any right 
to interfere. The claims of the Bible to be authorita- 
tive once being admitted, the simple question is, What 
does it mean ? — And of any particular passage ; What 
idea did the original writer mean to convey? When 
this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpreta- 
tion, this is authoritative ; this is orthodoxy in the high- 
est and best sense of the word ; and every thing which 
differs from it, which modifies it, which fritters its mean- 
ing away, is heterodoxy, is heresy ; to whatever name or 
party it is attached. 

1 presume you will agree, without hesitation, to these 
principles. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible 
is our only and sufficient rule of faith and, practice, amounts 
most clearly to the very same thing which I have stat- 
ed ; and which every man must admit, that acknowledg- 
es the paramount claims of the Bible to be believed, and 
has any tolerable acquaintance with the subject of its 
interpretation. 

If there be any thing to which I should object, in 
your statement generally considered of the laws of In- 
terpretation, it is rather in the coloring which has been 
given to some of the language in which it is expressed. 
You commence with saying, that your party are charg- 
ed w ith " exalting reason above revelation with " pre- 
ferring their own wisdom to God's;" and that these 



12 



charges are " circulated freely and with injurious inten- 
tions." You will readily acknowledge, as a general fact, 
that there is difficulty in giving an impartial statement of 
opinions, which we thus strongly feel to have been misre- 
presented ? We certainly, in such cases, are under temp- 
tation to set off our own views to the best advantage, 
and to place those of our opponents in the most disad- 
vantageous light. 

With the two last paragraphs of your sermon, that 
are quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signi- 
fying that I entirely agree. It is, however, rather the 
application of some exegetical principles that is intro- 
duced into them, than the principles themselves, from 
which I dissent. I shall have occasion to remark here- 
after on this subject, and have mentioned it here, 
merely to prevent any mistake with regard to my mean- 
ing, in what I say upon the laws of interpretation, as ex- 
hibited by you. 

I am happy to find you frank enough to admit, that 
the principles of interpretation which you defend, are 
not original, or peculiar to your party ; although you 
seem to qualify this, by saying that " all Christians occa- 
sionally adopt them." If I understand you rightly, then, 
you would admit, that only Unitarians receive and prac- 
tise upon the whole system of exegesis, which you have 
described. In this, however, if this be your meaning, 
you are mistaken ; at least, it appears plainly so to me, 
as far as I am acquainted with the men called orthodox, 
in New England, at the present time. I doubt whether 
any man can study the science of interpretation, for a 
considerable time together, without adopting, for sub- 
stance, those principles of it, which you seem to claim 
appropriately, (as a whole,) for Unitarians, 



13 



How can it be explained, then, that supposing you 
and I are both sincerely seeking after truth, and that 
both adopt, for substance, the same maxims of interpre- 
tation, we should differ so Avidely in the results that flow 
from the application of these principles ? Perhaps this 
question may have some light thrown upon it, in the se- 
quel of these letters. 



LETTER II. 

Reverend and Dear Sir, 
I could wish to find as much in your sermon respect- 
ing the doctrine of the Trinity, with which I might ac- 
cord, as in your principles of interpretation. My appre- 
hensions respecting this doctrine, however, differ from 
yours. I have not hastily, nor without examination and 
reflection, embraced my present views of this subject. 
Nor can I say that I am convinced, by perusing your 
statement of the doctrine and the arguments against it, 
that I am erroneous in my views respecting it. 

You will not expect me, however, in these letters, 
which are intended to be brief, to go into a general dis- 
cussion of this great subject, which shall embrace all the 
important topics which it presents. I intend to touch 
only on those points, on which the hinge of the contro- 
versy seems to me to turn ; and these, in a manner as 
summary as the nature and difficulty of the case will 
permit. 

The statement which you make of your own faith 
in regard to the unity of God, and your account of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, are as follows : — 



14 



" First. We believe in the doctrine of god's unity, or that there 
is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance, 
and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it 
by vain philosophy. The proposition, that there is one God seems to 
us exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is one being, 
one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom 
underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong. We conceive, 
that these words could have conveyed no other meaning to the sim- 
ple and uncultivated people, who were set apart to be the deposita- 
ries of this great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understand- 
ing those hairbreadth distinctions between being and person, which the 
sagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intimation, that 
this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or that God's unity 
was a o t uite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent beings. 

" We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the uni- 
ty of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and 
equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has 
his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions . They love 
each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's so- 
ciety. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each hav- 
ing his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. 
The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, 
and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking 
flesh. Here then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of dif- 
ferent consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, per- 
forming different acts, and sustaining different relations ; and if these 
things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly 
at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is dif- 
ference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the 
belief of different intelligent beings, and if this mark fail us, our whole 
knowledge falls ; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in 
the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to 
conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more, than represent 
to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar 
marks and peculiarities to those, which separate the persons of the 
Trinity : and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as 
conversing with each other, loving each other and performing differ- 
ent acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, differ- 
ent minds ?" pp. 8, 9. 

My object in this letter is not to controvert your 
creed ; but to remark on your exposition of the doctrine 
of the Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended, by those 
with whom I am accustomed to think and act. 

Admitting that you have given a fair account of our 



15 



belief; I cannot see, indeed, why we are not virtually 
guilty of Tritheism ; or at least of something which ap- 
proximates so near to it, that I acknowledge myself una- 
ble to make the distinction. But I cannot help feeling, 
that you have made neither an impartial, nor a correct 
statement of what we believe, or what we are accustom- 
ed to teach and defend. 

It needs but a moderate acquaintance with the his- 
tory of the doctrine in question, to satisfy any one, that 
a great variety of explanations have been attempted by 
inquisitive, or by adventurous minds. All acknowledge 
the difficulty of the subject ; I regret to say, that all 
have not refrained from treating it, as though it were 
more within their comprehension than it is. 

But among all the different explanations, which I 
have found, I have not met with any one which denied, 
or at least was designed to deny, the Unity of God. All 
admit this to be a fundamental principle. All acknowl- 
edge that it is designated in characters of light, both in 
the Jewish and Christian revelations ; and that to deny 
it would be the grossest absurdity, as well as impiety. 

It may, indeed, be questioned, whether the explana- 
tions given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some, who 
have speculated on this subject, are consistent with the 
divine unity, when the language which they use is fairly 
interpreted, agreeably to the common laws of exegesis. 
But that their representations were not designed to 
to call in question the divine Unity, is what I think every 
candid reader of their works will be disposed to admit 

Now when I consider this fact, so plain and so easily 
established; and then look through your statement of the 
doctrine of the Unity of God, and the Trinity, as given 
above : I confess it gives me pain* to think that you have 



16 



not conceded or even intimated, that Trinitarians do, or 
can, admit the Unity of God. You have a right to say, 
if you so think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as they 
explain and defend it, is at variance with the divineUnity; 
and that they are inconsistent with each other. But to 
appropriate solely to those, who call themselves Unitari- 
ans, the belief that there is but one God ; or to construct 
an account of the Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me 
you have done, in the paragraph on which I am remark- 
ing,) so as not even to intimate to your hearers or rea- 
ders, that your opponents admit, or advocate the divine 
Unity ; is doing that which you would censure in an an- 
tagonist, and which cannot well subserve the interests 
of inquiry after truth. 

But let us examine your statement of our creed : — 

" We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity 
of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal 
persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Ho- 
ly Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has 
his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love 
each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's 
society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each 
having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the oth- 
er. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends 
the Son, and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, 
of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, pos- 
sessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different per- 
ceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations ; 
and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, 
we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be 
formed." p. 9. 

Is not this account a very different one, from that 
which many of your brethren are accustomed to give of 
us ? — By them it is said, that there is a great variety of 
discordant and contradictory statements and explanations 
of the doctrine of the Trinity, among those who embrace 
it. Do not you amalgamate us all together ; make us 



17 



harmonious Tritheists, and then dismiss us to the re- 
proach of Tritheism, or at least of glaring inconsistency ? 

After all ; the statement, which you exhibit of our 
views, is very far from that which we, (or at least all 
Trinitarians with whom I am acquainted,) should make 
of our belief. I do not deny, that some writers on this 
subject have given reason, to make a statement not very 
diverse from yours, as it regards the explication of the 
Trinity. Some great and good men, in their zeal to defend 
this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject to 
human comprehension. How vain the attempt experi- 
ence has demonstrated. Efforts of this nature, however 
well designed, or ably conducted, never yet have led to 
any thing but greater darkness. " Who can by searching 
find out God? Who can find out the Almighty to perfec- 
tion ?" 

But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain 
what in the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have 
misled some in their efforts to acquire religious knowl- 
edge, or given occasion to others of stumbling ; yet I am 
not prepared to admit, that the great body of Trinitari- 
ans have given just occasion to charge them with a de- 
nial of the Unity of God, or with an opinion subversive 
of this. You certainly ought not to deny them the same 
liberty, in the use of terms to express their ideas, which 
all men take on every subject that is difficult, and for the 
accurate expression of which language is not framed, per- 
haps is not even adequate. They must approach such 
subjects by the use of figurative language ; by the use of 
terms, which, if I may be indulged the liberty of thus ex- 
pressing myself, approximate as nearly to it, as any that 
they can select. If there is any obscurity in these gen- 
3 



18 



eral observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the re- 
marks that are to follow. 

Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief, 
you will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that 
you may compare this with the doctrine of divine Unity, 
and judge for yourself, whether it is subversive of it, or 
not. I cannot refuse my assent to so reasonable a pro- 
posal 5 nor do I feel any inclination to shrink from the 
task, with the excuse that every thing respecting the 
subject is too mysterious and recondite, to be the object 
of distinct contemplation. What we do believe can be 
stated ; what we do not profess to explain or define can 
be stated, and the reasons why we do not ; and this is 
what I shall now attempt. 

I must not, however, be understood as pledging in 
general those with whom I am accustomed to think and 
act, as adopting my statement, and maintaining that it 
pursues the best method of explaining or defending the 
great doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so 
often charged with adherence to forms and modes of ex- 
pression contained in creeds, there is as much liberty ta- 
ken among us, as to variety of method in giving instruc- 
tion with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, as the 
other doctrines of religion. I can only say, in respect to 
the statement which I shall make, that it is not the re- 
sult of concert in any degree with clerical brethren who 
accord in my general views of religious doctrines, for the 
purpose of making a statement to which they will ad- 
here. It is the result of investigation and reflection on 
the subject, as it appears to be developed in the Scrip- 
tures, and in the writings of the leading divines, whom I 
have been able to consult. 

I believe, then, 



19 



I. That God is one ; numerically one, in essence and 
attributes. In other words, the infinitely perfect Spirit, 
the creator and preserver of all things, the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, has numerically the same essence, and 
the same perfections, so far as we know any thing of 
them, which can be the subject of affirmation. To par- 
ticularize ; the Son possesses not simply a similar or 
equal essence and perfections, but numerically the same 
as the Father, without division, and without multiplica- 
tion. 

II. The Son, (and so the Holy Spirit.) does in some 
respect truly and really, not merely nominally or logically, 
differ from the Father. 

I am aware, as I have hinted above, that you may 
find writers upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have 
stated the subject of my first proposition, in a manner 
somewhat different. But after making due allowances, for 
inattention to precision of language, the difficulty of the 
subject, and the various ways which men naturally take 
to illustrate a difficult subject, I am not aware that many 
of them would dissent, substantially, from the statement 
now made. Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession 
exhibits the same view. The words are ; " The divine 
essence is one, which is called and is God, eternal, incor^ 
poreal, indivisible ; of infinite power, wisdom, and good- 
ness ; the Creator and Preserver of all things, visible and 
invisible.* 

The Confession of Helvetia (written A. D. 1566,) 
declares, that " God is one in essence or nature, subsist- 
ing by himself, all sufficient in himself, invisible, without 
a body, infinite, eternal, the Creator of all things visible 

* Una est essentia divina, quae appellator et est Dens, aeternus, in- 
corporeus, impartibilis ; immensa potentia, sapientia,bonitate ; Creator 
et Conservator omnium rerum visibilium, et invisibilium. (Art. I.) 



20 



and invisible, &c." It adds, " we detest the multitude of 
gods, because it is expressly written, The Lord thy God 
is one God, &c." 

The Confession of Basil (A. D. 1532) declares, that 
there is " One eternal, almighty God, in essence and sub- 
stance, and not three gods." 

The Confession of the Waldenses states, that the 
Holy Trinity, " is in essence one only true, alone, eternal, 
almighty, and incomprehensible God, of one equal indi- 
visible essence." 

The French Confession (A. D. 1566) says, " We be- 
lieve and acknowledge one only God, who is one only and 
simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable, 
infinite, &c." 

The English Confession (A. D. 1562) states, that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, " be of one power, of one 
majesty, of one eternity, of one Godhead, and one sub- 
stance. And although these three persons be so divided, 
that neither the Father is the Son, nor the Son is the 
Holy Ghost, nor the Father ; yet nevertheless, we be- 
lieve that there is but one very God." 

The Confession of Belgia (A. D. 1566) declares, that 
i4 There is one only simple and spiritual essence, which 
we call God, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immu- 
table, infinite, &c." 

The articles of the English, episcopal church de- 
clare, that " there is but one living and true God, ever- 
lasting, without body, parts, or passions, &c." 

The Confession of the Reformed churches in the 
Netherlands, revised at the Synod of Dort, (A. D. 1618 
— 1619) declares, f 4 We believe that there is one only 
and simple, spiritual Being, which we call God ; and that 
he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, in- 
finite, &c." (Vide Harmony of Confessions.) 



21 



With these agrees the Westminster Confession, ap- 
proved by the general Assembly of Divines in A.D.1647, 
adopted by all the Presbyterian churches in Great 
Britain and America, and assented to -by a great part of 
the Congregational churches in New England. Its words 
are ; " There is but one only living and true God, who is 
infinite in being and perfection, a pure spirit, invisible, 
without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, 
eternal, incomprehensible, &c." [West. Con. p. 32.] 

Now is this the denial of the divine unity, with which 
we are implicitly charged ? Can Unitarians present a 
different, or more complete description of the divine 
unity, than these Symbols, of the different denomina- 
tions of those who admit the doctrine of the Trinity, 
present ? 

But admitting our statement of the divine Unity to 
be correct; you will aver, probably, that my second 
proposition is subversive of the first. And this is what 
I shall now endeavour to investigate. 

The common language of the Trinitarian Symbols is, 
" That there are three persons in the Godhead" In your 
comments upon this, you have all along explained the 
word person, just as though it were a given point, that 
we use the term here in its ordinary acceptation as ap- 
plied to men. But can you satisfy yourself that this is 
doing us justice ? What is plainer in Church History, 
than that the word person was introduced into the creeds 
of ancient times, merely as a term which would express 
the disagreement of Christians in general, with the re- 
puted errors of the Sabellians, and others of similar sen- 
timents, who denied the existence of any real distinction 
in the Godhead, and asserted that Father, Son, and Ho- 
ly Ghost were merely attributes of God, or the names of 



22 



different ways in which he revealed himself to mankind, 
or of different relations which he bore to them, and in 
which he acted ? The Nicene Fathers meant to deny 
the correctness of this statement, when they used the 
word person, by implying that there was some real, not 
merely nominal distinction in the Godhead; and that 
something more than a diversity of relation or action in 
respect to us, was intended. They used the word per- 
son, because they supposed it approximated nearer to 
designating the existence of a real distinction, than any 
other which they could choose. Most certainly, neither 
they, nor any intelligent Trinitarian could use this term, 
in such a latitude as you represent us as doing, and as 
you attach to it. We profess to use it, merely from the 
poverty of language ; merely to designate our belief of a 
real distinction in the Godhead ; and not to describe in- 
dependent, conscious beings, possessing separate and equal 
essences, and perfections. Why should we be obliged so 
often to explain ourselves on this point ? Is there any 
more difficulty here, or any thing more obnoxious, than 
when you say, " God is angry with the wicked every 
day ?" You defend yourself in the use of such an ex- 
pression, by saying, that it is only the language of ap- 
proximation ; that it is intended to describe that in the 
mind of the Deity, or in his actions, which corresponds 
in some measure, or in some respect, to anger in men ; 
not that he really feels the passion of anger. — You will 
permit me, then, to add, that we speak of persons in the 
Godhead, to designate that which in some respect or 
other corresponds to person as applied to men, i. e. some 
distinction ; not that we attach to it the meaning of three 
beings, with a separate consciousness, will, omnipotence, 
omniscience, &c. Where is then, our inconsistency in 



23 



this, or the absurdity of our language ; provided there 
is a real foundation in the Scriptures, on which we may 
rest the fact of a distinction, that we believe to exist ? 

I could heartily wish, indeed, that the word person 
never had come into the Symbols of the Churches, be- 
cause it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary 
dispute and difficulty. But since it is in common use, it 
is difficult, perhaps impossible, altogether to reject it. 
If it must be retained, I readily concede that the use of 
it ought to be so guarded, as not to lead Christians in 
general into erroneous ideas of God. Nor can I suppose 
that Christians generally have such ideas, or understand 
it to mean what you attribute to our belief. Then sure- 
ly it is not the best mode of convincing your opponents, 
to take the word in a sense so different from that in 
which they understand it, and charge them with the ab- 
surdities consequent upon the language of their creed. 
It has always been a conceded point, that in the discus- 
sion of difficult subjects, or the statement of them, terms 
might be used aside from their ordinary import. And 
what can teach us in a plainer manner, that Trinitarians 
do use the word 'person in this way, than that thev 
agree that God is one, in essence and in attributes ? 

It might have been justly expected, likewise, that 
before they were charged with subverting the divine 
Unity, the meaning of the word person, should have been 
carefully investigated, in the ancient records which des- 
cribe its first introduction into the Symbols of the 
Church. One of your rules of exegesis, to which I have 
with all my heart assented, demands that " every word 

should be modified and explained, according to the 

subject which is discussed, according to the purposes, feel- 
ings, circumstances and principles of the writer." Do us 



24 



the justice to apply this law of interpretation to our lan- 
guage, and the dispute between us about the meaning of 
person is forever at an end. 

What is then, you doubtless will ask, that distinction in 
the Godhead, which the word person is meant to desig- 
nate ? I answer without hesitation, that I do not know. 
The fact that a distinction exists, is what we aver ; the 
definition of that distinction is what I shall by no means 
attempt. By what shall I, or can I define it ? What simile 
drawn from created objects,which are necessarily derived 
and dependent, can illustrate the mode of existence in 
that Being, who is underived, independent, unchangeable, 
infinite, eternal ? I confess myself unable to advance a 
single step here, in the explanation of what the distinc- 
tion is. / receive the fact that it exists, simply because I 
believe that the Scriptures reveal the fact. And if the Scrip- 
tures do reveal the fact, that there are three persons, (in 
the sense explained,) in the Godhead ; that there is a 
distinction on which are founded the appellations of Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost ; which lays the foundation 
for saying, with propriety, i, Thou, He ; for to speak of 
sending and being sent ; of being with God, of being in 
his bosom, and other things of the like nature ; and yet 
that the divine nature is equally predicable of each; then 
it is, like every other fact revealed, to be received sim- 
ply on the credit of divine revelation. 

Is there any more difficulty in understanding the fact, 
that there is a distinction in the Godhead, (the existence 
of which we are required to believe, and on w r hich are 
founded some of the most interesting and delightful ex- 
hibitions of the divine character, although we cannot 
tell in what the distinction consists, or in other words, 
cannot define it,) than there is in believing that God 



25 



possesses an underived existence ? With what shall we 
compare such an existence ? All other beings are deriv- 
ed ; and, of course, there is no object in the universe 
with which it can be compared. To define it then, is 
beyond our reach. We can approximate towards a 
conception of it, merely by negatives. We deny that 
the divine existence has any author, or cause ; and when 
we have done this, we have not defined it, but simply 
said that a certain thing does not belong to it. Here we 
must rest ; and archangels, probably, cannot proceed 
beyond this. 

Now in regard to the distinction in the Godhead, 
which we believe to exist ; Ave say, It is not a mere dis- 
tinction of attrib utes tvhich are known to us, of relation to 
us, of modes of action, or of relation between any known 
attributes and substance or essence. We believe the 
Scriptures justify us in these negations. But here we 
leave the subject. We undertake (at least the Trinita- 
rians of our country with whom I am acquainted under- 
take,) not at all to describe affirmatively, the distinction 
in the Godhead. When you will give me an affirmative 
description of underived existence, I will engage to fur- 
nish you with one of person in the Trinity. You do not 
reject the belief of self existence, merely because you 
cannot affirmatively define it ; neither do w r e of a distinc- 
tion in the Godhead, because we cannot affirmatively de- 
fine it. 

What is the eternity of God? You answer by tell- 
ing me, that there never was a time, and never will be 
one, in which be did not exist. True : but then, what was 
time, before the planetary system, which measures it, 
had an existence ? And what will time be, when these 
heavens and this earth shall be blotted out ? Besides. 
4 



26 

passing over this difficulty about time, you have only 
given a negative description of God's eternity ; you deny 
certain things of him, and then aver that he is eternal. 
Yet because you cannot affirmatively describe eternity, 
you would not reject the belief of the fact that God is 
eternal Why should I reject the belief of a distinction 
in the Godhead, because I cannot affirmatively define it? 

I do not feel therefore, that we are exposed justly to 
be taxed with mysticism, and absurdity, when we admit 
that there is a distinction in the Godhead, which we feel 
utterly unable to define. I am aware, indeed, that a writ- 
er some time since composed, and published in the period- 
ical work then edited at Cambridge, a piece in which he 
laboured with no small degree of ability and acuteness, 
to show that no man can believe a proposition, the terms 
of which are unintelligible, or which he does not under- 
stand ; and then applied the subject to convince those 
who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity of absurdity. 
But it seems to me, the whole argument of that piece is 
founded on a confusion of two things, which are in them- 
selves very diverse ; viz., terms which are unintelligible, 
and things which are undefinable. You believe in the 
fact that the divine existence is without cause ; you un- 
derstand the fact, that God exists uncaused ; but you 
cannot define underived existence. I believe, on the au- 
thority of the Scriptures, that there is a real distinction 
in the Godhead ; but I cannot define it. Still the pro- 
position that there is a real distinction is just as intelligi- 
ble, as the one that God is self existent. A multitude 
of propositions respecting many diverse subjects, resem- 
ble these* We affirm that gravitation brings a body 
thrown into the air, down to the earth. The fact is 
perfectly intelligible. The terms are perfectly under- 



27 



stood, so far as they are the means of designating this 
fact. But then, what is gravitation ? An affirmative 
definition cannot be given, which is not a mere exchange 
of synonymes. Nor can any comparison define it ; for to 
what shall we liken it ? 

The mind of every man, who is accustomed to think, 
will supply him with a multitude of propositions of this 
nature ; in all of which the fact designed to be describ- 
ed is clear ; the terms so far as they designate this fact 
are clear ; but the subject of the proposition, that is the 
thing itself, or agent, concerning which the fact is assert- 
ed, is undefinable, and, excepting in regard to the fact in 
question, perhaps wholly unknown to us. 

How easy now to perplex common minds, by calling 
a proposition unintelligible, the subject of which is unde- 
finable. In confounding things so very different, consists 
as I apprehend, the whole ingenuity of the piece in ques- 
tion ; an ingenuity, which may excite the admiration of 
those who love disceptatious subtilties, but cannot con- 
tribute much to illuminate the path of theological set- 
ence. 

I have been thus particular, in my statement of this 
very difficult part of the subject, in order to prevent 
misapprehension. I certainly do not hold myself bound 
to vindicate any of the definitions of person, or distinction 
in the Godhead, which I have seen, because I do not 
adopt them. I do not, and cannot understand them ; 
and to a definition, I cannot with propriety assent, until 
I do understand what it signifies. I regret most sincere- 
ly to see, that some great and good men, have carried 
their speculations on this subject to such a length, that 
they have bewildered themselves and their readers. 
To present only a few of the ablest attempts to define 



28 



the persons of the Trinity, will illustrate and establish 
what I have just said. 

Contrary to the very common and confident affirma- 
tions of many writers, that the terms Trinity and person, 
as applied to the Godhead, were the refinements of 
later ages, and scholastic divinity ; I find them used at 
a period of the Church, not far distant from the Apos- 
tolic age. Tertullian, who flourished about A. D. 200, 
in Libro adversus Praxeam, c. 2, says, 44 This perverr 
sity, (viz. of Praxeas,) thinks itself to be in possession of 
mere truth, while it supposes that we are to believe in 
one God, not otherwise than if we make the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost the self same ; as if all were not 
one, while all are of one, viz. by a unity of substance ; and 
still, the mysterious economy which distributes unity into 
a Trinity is observed, marking out [distinguishing] Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. There are three, not in 
condition, but rank ; not in essence, but form ; not in 
power, but in kind : but of one substance, one condition, 
and power ; for there is one God, from whom all those 
ranks, and forms, and kinds by the name of Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost are reckoned." 

A little farther on he says, — 44 Whatever, therefore, 
the substance of the Word (Logos) is, I call him a per- 
son, and pay him reverence; and acknowledging the Son, 
I maintain that he is second from the Father. 

44 The third is the Spirit from God and the Son, as the 
,fruit from the stalk, is the third from the root ; a rivu- 
let from the river [the third] from the fountain; the 
sharp point from a ray [the third] from the sun. So the 
Trinity proceeds, by interlinked and connected grades, 
from the Father." 

In Cap. 9 ? he says, 44 They (the Trinity) are not sep? 



29 



arate from each other, although the Father is said to be 
diverse from the Son, and the Spirit." 

And again ; " Each one of us is baptized into the 
persons (of the Trinity) by particular [or distinct] 
names."* 

So Origen, who flourished before Tertuliian's death, 
(Com. in Johan. p. 24.) reprehends those " who do not 
attribute vnoctadiv Aoya), person to the Word, or Lo- 
gos ;" and shortly after adds, " tpng vnoanacfeig we ac- 
knowledge, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" 
I believe Tertullian is the earliest writer, who affords a 
decisive specimen of the technical use of the word Trin- 
ity, and Person. His object cannot be mistaken. His 
antagonist, Praxeas, denied that there existed any dis- 
tinction in the Godhead ; or at most, any except a ver- 
bal one. Tertullian means to assert the existence of a 
threefold distinction, for which he uses the word Trini- 

* " Perversitas haec, (sc. Praxeae,) se existimat meram veritatem 
possidere, dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ip- 
sum eundemque et Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum dicat, 
quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per substan- 
tiate scilicet unitatem et nihilominus custodiatur otKovo^iw; sacramentum, 
quae unitatem in Trinitatem disponit ; tres dirigens, Patrem, Filium. 
et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autem non statu sed gradu ; nec sub- 
stantia sed forma ; nec potestate sed specie s unius autem substantias, 
et status, et potestatis, quia unus Deus ex quo et gradus isti, et for- 
ma?, et species, in nomine Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum de- 
putantur." 

— " quaecunque ergo, substantia Sermonis {tov Xoyov) sit, ilium dico 
personam et ilh nomen vindico; et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a Pa- 

tre defendo. Tertius est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a ra- 

dice fructus ex frutice ; a fonte rivus ex flumine ; a sole apex ex ra- 
dio. Ita Trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a Patre decurrit. 

* c — Inseparati tamen ab alterutro, etsi dicatur alium esse Patrem^ 
alium Filium et Spiritum. 

■ — w Ad singula Nomina, in personas singdlas tingimiuv* 



30 



ty ; and to signify that this distinction is real, not nominal, 
he uses the word person. 

But to explain Tertullian's similitudes, (so frequently 
copied in after ages,) is more than I shall undertake. 
Who does not see, that all similitudes drawn from creat- 
ed, limited, dependent beings or things, must be utterly 
inadequate to illustrate the mode in which an uncreated, 
infinite, and omnipresent Being exists ? — What is the at- 
tempt, but to " darken counsel by words without knowl- 
edge?" I believe with Tertullian in a threefold distinc- 
tion in the Godhead ; but I believe simply the fact of a 
Trinity, and do not venture to make any attempt at ex- 
planation. 

Very little if any better than Tertullian, have suc- 
ceeded the venerable Council of Nice, who designed in 
their Creed, to express their disagreement with the opin- 
ions of Arius. Their words are ; " We believe in one 
God, the Father, Almighty, the maker of all things visible 
and invisible ; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God, the only begotten of the Father, that is of the sub- 
stance of the Father; God of God, light of light, very God 
of very God, begotten not made, of the same substance 
with the Father, by whom all things were made."* 

This Council (held A. D. 325,) believed in the eter- 
nal generation of the Son; and meant to say, by the very 
peculiar phraseology which they have here exhibited, 

* TJiGtevo[i£ v etg iva Seov, rtatspa, rtavtoxpatopa, noi~ 
yiryjv opatav rte navtwv xai aopatw xai eig iva ILvpiov 
\viaovv Hpi<y*ov 9 nov vlov tov Seov 9 tov lysvvyidevta ex 
?ov natpog iLovoyEVYi, tovr 9 soti ex HYig ovGiag fov natpog, 
Seov ex Seoi;, 4>«s ex tyQtoq, Seov a%vfiivov ex Seov akv\- 
Bivovy ysvvYiQsvra oy noiYi^Evna^ o^oovGlov toi natph $i' 
6v <ta navta siyevEto. 



31 



that the essential distinction between the Father and 
the Son, consisted in the fact of his eternal generation. 
Arius affirmed that the Son was begotten in time ; the 
Nicene Fathers, that his generation was eternal. 

I am unable to conceive of a definite meaning in the 
terms, eternal generation ; and I cannot regard them in 
any other light than as a solecism, a palpable contra- 
diction of language. Nor can I understand the Nicene 
Creed, when it says that Christ was u God of God, light of 
light, very God of very God" If there is any thing meant 
by all this, (and no doubt there is,) can it be more, 
than that there is and has from eternity been, a myste- 
rious and indescribable connexion and discrimination be- 
tween the Father and Son ? I presume the Nicene 
Fathers meant to make out an affirmative or positive defi- 
nition. That they have failed is sufficiently evident ; but 
that they are guilty of designed intrusion into the myste- 
ries of the Godhead, or of intending to introduce useless 
and unmeaning words into their Symbol, no person of 
candour, who examines thoroughly the history of their 
creed, will, I think, be led to believe. 

The council of Constantinople, reckoned as the sec- 
ond ecumenical Council, (A. D. 381) in their Synodic ad- 
dress to the churches, say, that " it is the most ancient 
faith, and agreeable to baptism, to believe in the name of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so namely, that there 
is one divinity, power, and substance of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost; who possess equal dignity, and coeternal 
dominion ; who exist in three most perfect hypostases, or 
three perfect persons ; so that the pest of Sabellius shall 
have no place, which confounds the persons, and takes 
away their appropriate qualities ; nor the blasphemy of 
the Eunomians, Arians, and opposers of the Holy Spirit 



32 



prevail, which destroys the substance, and nature, and 
divinity of the uncreated, consubstantial, and coeternal 
Trinity, by introducing a posterior nature, of a different 
substance, and created."* (Thcodorcti.Ecc.Hist. L.v. c.9.) 

I cannot see how this explanation gives us any more 
light than the others. 

Let us leave antiquity, and glance, for a moment, at 
some of the similar attempts in modern times. The cel- 
ebrated Leibnitz, was requested by Loefler, (who had 
undertaken to refute the writings of a certain EnHish 
Antitrimtarian,) to give him an affirmative definition of 
the persons in the Godhead. He sent for answer the 
following ; " Several persons in an absolute substance, 
numerically the same, signify several, particular, intelli- 
gent substances essentially related."! On further con- 
sideration he abandoned this, and sent a second; which 
w 7 as, " Several persons in an absolute substance numeri- 
cally the same, mean relative, incommunicable modes of 
subsisting.''^ 

* — matevuv sig to ovopa rov navpog, tov viov, xai nov 
Ttvevuatog ayiov, S^a^Yi ^eoTrjTog ts xai ovvafxecog xai ov- 
diag [itag <vov natpog, vov vlov, xai <tov nvevfiarog ayiov 
7tiGTsvo[i£vrig, 6{j,oTi[tov rs nr k g a^iag xai GvvauSiov ryjg 
(3aGi%siag ev rpiGi vefeioravaig vnoGraGiVt yjyovv rpiGi te- 
heioig nooGcdTtoig, cog (iyjre tyiv XaSe?^iov vooov %copav 
hadsiv, Gvy%£0[ievG)v rcdv vnoGtaGmv^ yjyovv iSioryjrcov 
avaipovfxevuw ; [zyjTs ryjv Evvo L uiavcov 9 Apsiavcov, xai Hvev- 
(x,a?ona%(dV tyjv fi%aG$Yiuiav iG%vsiv, ryjg ovGiag, y\ trig 
tpvGeog, yj trig Seoryjrog reiivo^svyjg, xai tyi axuiGHu, xai 
c[ioovGiG)> xai GvvauSio) TpiaSi [lerayevsGrepag Tivog, y\ 
xtiGTYjg, yj ztepoovGiov cpvGeog £7tayo[i£VYig* 

t Plures person® in eadem numero substantia absoluta, significant 
plures substantias singulares, intelligentes, essentialiter relativas. 

| Plures personae in eadem numero substantia absoluta, intelli- 
guntur per modos subsistendi relativos, incommunicabiles. 



33 



If Leibnitz actually understood this, lie must have 
been a better master of metaphysics, than any person 
who has ever read his definition. In fact he does not 
himself appear to have been satisfied with his own defi- 
nition ; for not long after, he wrote as follows ; " We 
must say, that there are relations in the Divine Sub- 
stance, which distinguish the persons, since these persons 
cannot be absolute substances. But we must aver, too, 
that these relations are substantial. At least, we must 
say, that the Divine Persons are not the same Concrete, 
under different denominations or relations ; as a man 
may be, at the same time, both a poet and an orator. 
We must say, moreover, that the three persons are not 
as absolute substances as the whole,"* 

This is somewhat better than either of his former 
attempts, in as mush as it is confined principally to des- 
cription of a negative kind. Yet after all, I see no light 
cast upon the subject, which is of any real importance. 

With quite as little success, did that original genius and 
masterly reasoner, the celebrated Toellner of Frankfort, 
labour to define the subject in question. " It is certain," 
says he, " that we must conceive, as coexisting in God, 
three eternal and really different actions, the action of 
activity, of idea, and of the desire of all possible good 
within and without him. Three really different actions, 
coexisting from eternity, necessarily presuppose three 
really different and operative substrata. It is thus, 
through the aid of reason illuminated by the Scriptures, 
we come to know, that the Power, the Understanding, 
and the Will of God are not merely three faculties, but 
three distinct energies, that is, three substances."! 

* Remarques sur le livre <P un Antitrinitaire AngLois, p. 26. 

v Es ist gewiss, dass wir uns in Gott drev ewige wahrhaftig von 
5 



34 



Tertullian's explication, or the Nicene Creed is, at 
least, as intelligible to me as this. 

I will produce but one instance more ; which is that 
of the celebrated Lessing. " Must not God*," says he, 
44 have the most perfect idea of himself? That is, an 
idea in which every thing is comprised, that is compris- 
ed in himself. Could this however be the case, if, in 
the same manner as of his other attributes, there should 
be merely an idea, merely a possibility of his necessary 
activity ? This possibility comprises the being of his 
other attributes ; but can it exhaust his necessary activ- 
ity ? Consequently, God can either have no perfect idea 
of himself; or this perfect idea is necessarily active, as 
he himself is."* 

If there be any proof here of more than one person 

einander unterschiedene Handlungen neben einander, gedenken mu- 
essen ; die Handlung des Wirkens, der Vorstellung, und des Begeh- 
rens alles moeglichen Guten in und ausser ihm. 

Drey wahrhaftig verschiedene Handlungen, zugleich von Ewig- 
keit her neben einander, erfordern auch von Ewigkeit her drey von 
einander wahrhaftig verschiedene handelnde Gruende. Und so ver- 
kennen wir mit der durch die Schj-ift erwekten Vernunft, dass die 
Kraft, der Verstand, und der Wille in Gott nicht drey blosse Vermoe- 
gen, sondern drey von einander verschiedene Kraefte, das ist drey 
Substanzen sind. [Fermischte Aufs'dtze. B. i. p. 81. edit. 1769.] 

* Muss Gott nicht die vollstaendigste Vorstellung von sich selbst 
haben? d. i. eine Vorstellung in der sich alles befindet, was in ihm 
selbst ist. Wuerde sich aber alles in ihr linden was in ihm selbst ist, 
wenn auch von seiner nothwendigen Wuerklichkeit, so wie von sei- 
nen uebrigen Eigenschaften, sich bios eine Vorstellung, sich bios eine 
Moeglichkeit faende ? Diese Moeglichkeit erschoepft das Wesen 
seiner uebrigen Eigenschaften : aber auch seiner nothwendigen 
Wuerklichkeit ? Folglich, kann entweder Gott gar keine vollstaen- 
dige Vorstellung von sich selbst haben ; oder diese Vorstellung ist 
eben so nothwendig wuerklich, als er selbst ist. (Die Erziehung des 
Menschengeschkchts. 1785. p. 68.) 



35 



in God, it is one which may prove there is ten, or twen- 
ty. And if Lessing himself understood his own descrip- 
tion, I shall not hazard much in declaring my belief, that 
he was the only man who has been able to do it. 

I have not produced these instances, in order to sat- 
isfy you that all attempts of this nature are and must 
be fruitless. You doubtless need no such proof. I have 
produced them for two reasons; the first, to justify my- 
self, in some good measure, for not attempting a defini- 
tion, in which no one has yet succeeded : the second, to 
show that notwithstanding all the fruitless attempts at 
definition, which have been made, and notwithstanding 
the variety of method in which men have chosen to make 
these attempts ; yet, for substance, there is a far greater 
unanimity of opinion among Trinitarians, than you and 
your friends are willing to concede. I grant freely, that 
there is a great variety, in the mode by which an at- 
tempt at definition or illustration is made. I do most 
sincerely regret, that any such attempts ever were made. 
But I cannot, for the most part, accuse them of any ill 
design ; much less spurn at them with contempt. 

Patient investigation and candor will lead one to be- 
lieve, as it seems to me, that the thing aimed at was, in 
substance, to assert the idea of a distinction in the Godhead, 
To do this with the more success, (as they imagined,) 
they endeavoured to describe affirmatively the nature of 
that distinction. Here they have all failed. But does 
this prove, that there is actually a great variety of opin- 
ion among Trinitarians, in regard to the principal thing 
concerned, merely because there is a great variety of 
attempts at illustration? I cannot help feeling that 
this matter is sometimes misrepresented, and very gene- 
rally but little understood, 



36 



And now, can you by arguments a prion, prove to me 
that the doctrine of the Trinity must be untrue, because 
it is inconsistent with itself, or " subversive of the doc- 
trine of divine Unity ?" — We say the divine essence and 
attributes are numerically one ; but that there is a real 
distinction in the Godhead between the Father and the 
Son. (I omit the consideration of the Holy Spirit here, 
because your Sermon merely hints at this subject, and 
all difficulties in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, 
are essentially connected with proving or disproving the 
Divinity of Christ.) We abjure all attempts to define that 
distinction ; we admit it simply as a fact, on the authority 
of divine Revelation. Now how can you prove that a 
distinction does not exist, unless you can tell us what it is ? 
The want of evidence in the Scriptures to establish the 
fact, would be a sufficient reason for rejecting it, I ac- 
knowledge. But we are now making out a statement 
of the subject, and answering objections that are urged, 
independently of the Scriptures. The proof which the 
New Testament exhibits, we are hereafter to examine. 
How then, I repeat it, are you to show that we believe 
in a self-contradiction, or in an impossibility ? If the 
distinction in question cannot be proved, independently 
of the Scriptures, (and most freely I acknowledge it 
cannot;) it is equally certain that it cannot be disproved. 
In order to know that this distinction contradicts the 
Divine Unity, you must be able to tell what it is, and 
what the divine Unity is ? Can you do either ? 

Allow me, for a moment, to dwell on the subject 
now casually introduced. It is a clear point, I think, that 
the unity of God cannot be proved, without revelation. 
It may perhaps be rendered faintly probable. Then 
you depend on Scripture proof, for the establishment 



37 



of this doctrine. But have the Scriptures any where 
told us what the divine Unity is ? Will you produce 
me the passage ? The oneness of God they assert. 
But this assertion is always in opposition to the idols 
of the heathen — the polytheism of the Gentiles — the 
gods superior and inferior, which they worshipped. In 
no other sense, have the Scriptures defined the one- 
ness of the Deity. What then is Oneness, in the uncre- 
ated, infinite, eternal Being ? In created and finite ob- 
jects, we have a distinct perception of what we mean by 
it ; but can created objects be just and adequate repre- 
sentatives of the uncreated One ? Familiar as. the asser- 
tion is in your conversation, and in your Sermons, that 
God is one, can you give me any other definition of this 
oneness, except a negative one ? That is, you deny plu- 
rality of it ; and say God is but one, and not two, or 
more. Still, in what, I ask, does the divine Unity con- 
sist ? Has not God different and various faculties, and 
powers ? Is he not almighty, omniscient, omnipresent, 
holy, just, and good ? Does he not act differently, i. e. 
variously, in the natural, and in the moral world ? Does 
his unity consist, then, appropriately in his essence ? But 
what is the essence of God ? And how can you assert 
that his unity consists appropriately in this, unless you 
know what his essence is, and whether oneness can 
be any better predicated of this, than of his attributes ? 

Your answer to all this is ; The nature of God is be- 
yond my reach ; I cannot define it. I approach to a de- 
finition of the divine unity, only by negatives. Our an- 
swer to Unitarians is, We do not profess to understand 
what the distinction in the Godhead is; we approach 
the definition of it only by negatives. How does our 
case differ in principle from yours? 



38 



And in respect to the evidences of the Divine Unit} 7 
in the New Testament ; I allow they are sufficient. But 
I will merely suggest, here, that I am fully persuaded, 
the passages asserting it are fewer in number, than the pas- 
sages which assert or imply that Christ is truly divine. I 
cannot but think the frequent and common assertions of 
of your Sermon and of Unitarians in general, with re- 
gard to this subject, are very erroneous ; that they are 
made at hazard, and without a diligent and faithful com- 
parison of the number of texts that respect the divine 
Unity in the New Testament, and those which concern 
the divinity of the Saviour. After all ; to what purpose 
is it, that so great a multitude of texts should be requir- 
ed, by those who believe, as you do, that the decisions 
of the Scriptures are of divine authority ? The decision 
of one text, fairly made out by the laws of exegesis, is 
as authoritative as that of a thousand. Would a law a 
thousand times repeated, have any more authority at- 
tached to it for the repetition ? It might be better ex- 
plained by the repetition in different connexions ; but its 
authority is simply one and uniform. 

But, to return from this digression ; Suppose I should 
affirm that the subjects A and B are numerically identi- 
cal in regard to X, but diverse or distinct with regard to 
Y ? I hope I shall not be subjected to the imputation, 
of endeavoring to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by 
the science of Algebra ; for my only object in making 
this statement is, to illustrate my answer to a very com- 
mon question, which Unitarians put us ; " How can three 
be one, and one three ?" In no way, I answer, necessa- 
rily and cheerfully. " How then is the doctrine of the 
Trinity in Unity to be vindicated?" Just as well as 
though these questions had never been devised. We do 



39 



not maintain that the Godhead is three in the same respects 
that it is one, but the reverse. In regard to X, we main- 
tain its numerical unity ; in regard to Y we maintain a 
threefold distinction; we maintain simply the fact that 
there is such a distinction, on Scripture authority. We 
do not profess to understand in what it consists. 

Now, Sir, will you not allow that we have some rea- 
son to complain, that from the time in which Tertullian 
maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Praxeas, 
down to the present hour, the views and statements of 
Trinitarians, in regard to this subject, should have been 
so frequently misunderstood, or misrepresented? 

I will dwell no longer on my statement of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, and of the difficulties that lie in 
the way of proving this statement to be erroneous or 
contradictory ; except to mention, in a brief way, two of 
the most formidable objections to it that I have seen, 
which were adduced by two men, who must be reckon- 
ed among the most intelligent, that have embraced the 
cause of Unitarianism. The first is from Faustus Soci- 
nue, and runs thus : 

" No one is so stupid, as not to see that these things 
are contradictory, that our God, the creator of heaven 
and earth should be one only in number, and yet be three, 
each of which is our God. For as to what they affirm, 
that our God is one in number, in respect to his essence, 
but threefold in regard to persons ; here again they af- 
firm things which are self-contradictory, since two, or 
three persons cannot exist, where there is an individual 
essence numerically one ; for to constitute more than one 
person, more than one individual essence is required. 
For what is person, but a certain individual, intelligent 
essence ? Or in what way, I pray, does one person dif- 



40 



for from another, unless by a diversity of individual es- 
sence, or of that which is numerically one ? — This im- 
plies, that the divine essence, is numerically one only, yet 
that there is more than one person ; although the Di- 
vine essence which is numerically one, and divine person 
are altogether identical."* (Opp. torn. i. p. 697.) 

Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weight 
of the objection lies in an erroneous use of the words 
person and essence. Socinus attaches to them a sense 
which Trinitarians do not admit. How then can Trin- 
itarians be charged with inconsistencies in propositions, 
which propositions they never made ? 

Of the same tenor with this, is the objection mention- 
ed by the famous Toellner, (Theolog. Untersuchungen* 
B. I. p. 29,) which, to save the room, I shall merely 
translate, without subjoining the original. " The most 
considerable objection," says he, " (against the doctrine 
of the Trinity,) is this ; that the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost are each a particular substance endowed with un- 
derstanding; and at the same time, neither of them is 
said to have his separate being, his separate understand- 

* Nemo est tam stolidus, qui non videat, pugnare haBC inter se, 
ilium Deum nostrum coeli terraeque creatorem esse unum tantum 
in numero, et tamen tres esse, quorum unusquisque sit ille Deus nos- 
ter. N Nam quod aiunt, unum quidem esse numero Deum, sed ratione 
essentiae, trinum vero ratione personarum ; rursus hie sibi invicem 
repugnantia loquuntur, cum tres vel etiam duae personae esse neque- 
ant, ubi est una tantum numero sive individua essentia, et ad plures 
una persona constituendas plures etiam una individual essentiae requi- 
rantur. Nam quid aliud persona est, quam quaedam individua intelli- 
gens essentia ? Aut qua potissimum ratione diversa est persona alia 

ab alia, nisi diversitate individual sive unius numero essentia? ? Im- 

plicat Divinam essentiam unam tantum numero esse, non tamen unam 
tantum esse divinam personam, sed plures, cum divina essentia nume- 
ro una, et divina persona idem omnino reapse sint 



41 



ing, his separate will, his separate power of action ; but 
all three together have but one being, one understand- 
ing, one will, one power of action. As it appears then, 
it is affirmed that there are three real beings truly sepa- 
rate, each consequently having his own individual power 
of action and not having it ; three separate persons, and 
three persons not separate" 

All the difficulty, which this masterly writer, in his 
usual way, has so strikingly represented, lies merely in 
the representations of those Trinitarians, who have so 
incautiously expressed themselves on this subject, as to 
be understood as affirming, that there are three separate 
beings, (persons in the common sense of the word,) in 
the Godhead, with distinct powers, volitions, &c. Such, 
(if there be any now, for I profess I do not know any,) 
I leave to compose the difficulty with Toeliner as they 
can. I have only a single remark to make ; which is, 
that the view of the doctrine of the Trinity given by 
Tocllner is not that which I have presented, or which I 
should ever undertake to defend. Of course it cannot 
be adduced as an objection, against the view which I 
have given, and have undertaken to advocate. 

The second objection appears, at first view, more 
formidable and perplexing. It comes from Taylor, and 
was inserted in the English Theological Magazine, Vol. 

O O O 7 

I. No. 4. p. 111. (1770.) I have not opportunity of ac- 
cess to the original, and take the ideas from a Latin trans- 
lation of the piece, which was published in Germany. 

" There can," says Taylor, " be no real distinction 
between the Father and the Son, unless they so differ 
from each other, that what is peculiar to the Father, is 
wanting in the Son ; and what is peculiar to the Son, is 
wanting in the Father. Now that property which be- 
6 



42 



longs exclusively to the Father, or the Son, must be 
numbered among the perfections of God; for in the di- 
vine nature no imperfections can exist. It follows then, 
that some perfection is lacking, both in the Father and 
in the Son, so that neither is endowed with infinite per- 
fection, which is essential to the divine nature. It must 
be conceded then, that the essence of the Father and 
the Son are not one and the same." 

Ingenious and specious as this is, still I am unable to 
see that it settles the point in debate. The moral attri- 
butes and perfections of God are numerically one, as we 
have already admitted. If by 'perfection in the case 
above, Taylor means all which belongs to the Godhead ; 
then I answer merely by saying, It is essential to the 
perfection of the Godhead, that the distinction of Fa- 
ther and Son should exist, and that destitute of this, 
there would be imperfection. My right to make such 
a statement is just the same as that of his in making the 
assertion, that the distinction between Father and Son, 
involved an imperfection in each. The very fact of Pa- 
ternity, and Sonship, (not literal,) make up the perfec- 
tion of the Father as Father ; and of the Son as Son ; 
and did not these exist, something would be wanting to 
complete the perfection of the Godhead. I acknowledge 
this is assumption ; but so is Taylor's statement : and an 
argument which is built on one assumption may surely 
be opposed by another. 

My object thus far, in this letter, has been to com- 
pare our views of the Trinity with those which you have 
ascribed to us ; and to show that we are not justly ex- 
posed to be charged with gross and palpable absurdity, 
or of " subverting the Unity of the Godhead and that 
the question, after all, whether there is a distinction in 



43 



the Godhead, must be referred solely to the decision of 
the Scriptures. 

To them I shall appeal, as soon as I have made a few 
remarks on the subject of the twofold nature, which we 
ascribe to Christ. You say (p. 11,) " We (Unitarians) 
believe in the unity of Jesus Christ, We believe that 
Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we 
are, and equally distinct from the one God. We com- 
plain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that not satisfied 
with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ 
two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our 
conceptions of his character. This corruption of Chris- 
tianity, alike repugnant to common sense, and to the gen- 
eral strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the 
power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple 
truth of Jesus." 

You will admit that this is expressed in terms of 
strong confidence, and with no small degree of severity. 
Whether you have so clear a right to the first, and whe- 
ther we are really deserving of the last, every lover of 
the truth will permit to be brought to the test of exam- 
ination. ^ 

I am not certain, that I have rightly apprehended 
your meaning, when you say that the twofold nature of 
Christ is " repugnant to common sense" Do you mean, 
that common sense may determine first, independently 
of Revelation, that the doctrine cannot be true ; and then 
maintain the impossibility that Revelation should contain 
it ? If so, then surely we do not need a Revelation to 
teach us truths, which we are altogether capable of de- 
veloping and asserting without one ; for you will easily 
see, that in respect to any doctrine of Revelation what- 
ever, every man might take the same liberty to decide, 



44 



that it could not be true, because he might aver, that it 
was contradictory to common sense. 

The proper sphere of action for common sense, is 
limited to judging of the evidences that the Bible is of 
divine origin and authority ; of the rules of exegesis 
common to all languages and books ; and finally in di- 
recting a fair and impartial application of those rules to 
determine what the original writer of any portion of the 
Scriptures designed to inculcate. Having once admit- 
ted, as you have, the divine authority of the Scriptures, 
in deciding all questions, when you can fairly come at the 
meaning of them, by using the common rules of interpre- 
tation; how is it to be decided by common sense whether 
Christ has two natures or one ? Common sense may in- 
vestigate the language of the inspired writers, and in- 
quire what they have said ; and if by the sound rules of 
interpretation, it should appear that they have affirmed 
of Christ that he has two natures; or asserted that which 
unavoidably leads to this conclusion ; then it is either to 
be believed, or the authority of the writers is to be cast 
off. Common sense must act on this latter ground, in re- 
jecting any doctrine which the language of Scripture 
plainly teaches. To receive the Bible as a revelation 
from, God ; and then to decide, a priori, what the Scrip- 
tures can, and what they cannot contain ; and to make 
their language bend, until it conform with these deci- 
sions ; cannot surely be a proper part for any sincere 
lover of truth and sober investigation. 

In saying then, that the doctrine which teaches that 
Christ has two natures is " repugnant to common sense," 
1 presume you must mean, that the rules of exegesis, ap- 
plied by common sense, lead unavoidably to the conclu- 
sion that Christ has but one nature, If this be your 



45 



meaning, what I have to say in reply will be developed 
in the course of my next letter. 

In regard to the impossibility that Christ should 
possess two natures, and the absurdity of such a suppo- 
sition, I have not much to say. If the Scriptures are the 
word of God, and do contain the doctrine in question, it 
is neither impossible, nor absurd. Most certainly, if 
it be a fact that Christ possesses two natures, it is a 
fact with which natural religion has no concern ; at least, 
of which it has no knowledge. It can therefore decide 
neither for, nor against it. It is purely a doctrine of 
Revelation ; and to Scripture only can we look for evi- 
dences of it. If the doctrine be palpably absurd, and 
contradictory to reason, and yet it is found in the Bible, 
then reject the claims of the Bible to inspiration and 
truth. But if the laws of interpretation do not permit 
us to avoid the conclusion that it is found there ; we can- 
not, with any coRsistency, admit that the Scriptures are 
of divine authority, and yet reject the doctrine. 

How shall any man decide, a priori, that the doctrine 
cannot he true ? Can we limit the omniscient and om- 
nipotent God, by saying that the Son cannot be so united 
with the human nature, so " become flesh and dwell 
among us," that we recognize and distinguish in this com- 
plex being but one person, and therefore speak of but 
one ? If you ask me how such a union can be effected 
between natures so infinitely diverse as the divine and 
human ; I answer, (as in the case of the distinction in 
the Godhead,) I. do not know how this is done ; I do not 
undertake to define wherein that union consists, nor how 
it is effected. God cannot divest himself of his essential 
perfections, i. e. he is immutably perfect ; nor could the 
human nature of Christ have been any more human 
nature, if it had ceased to be subject to the infirmi- 



46 



ties, and sorrows, and affections of human nature, while 
he dwelt among men. Whatever the union was then, it 
neither destroyed, nor essentially changed cither the di- 
vine or human nature. 

Hence, at one time, Christ is represented as the Crea- 
tor of the Universe ; and at another, as a man of sorrows, 
and of imperfect knowledge. (John i. 1 — 18. — Heb. i. 
10 — 12. — Luke ii. 52.) If both of these accounts are 
true, he must, as it seems to me, be God omniscient and 
omnipotent ; and still a feeble man and of imperfect 
knowledge. It is indeed impossible to reconcile these 
two things, without the supposition of two natures. The 
simple question then is ; Can they be joined, or united, 
so that in speaking of them, we may say the person is 
God or man ; or we may call him by one title, (which 
will leave us at liberty to understand as designated ei- 
ther or both of these natures,) i. e. Christ ? On this sub- 
ject, the religion of nature says nothing. Reason has 
nothing to say : for how can we decide, a priori, as to the 
possibility of that which is not self-contradictory ? 

One person, in the sense in which each of us is one, 
Christ could not be. If you make God the soul, and Je- 
sus of Nazareth the body of Christ, then you take away 
his human nature, and you deny the imperfection of his 
knowledge. But may not God have been, in a manner 
altogether peculiar and mysterious, united to Jesus, with- 
out developing his whole power in him, or necessarily 
rendering him supremely perfect ? In the act of crea- 
tion, God does not put forth all his power ; nor in preser- 
vation, nor in sanctitication ; nor all his knowledge when 
he inspires prophets and Apostles. Was it necessary 
that he should exert it all, when in conjunction with the 
human nature of Christ ? In governing the world, from 
day to day, God does not surely exhaust his omnipotence 



47 



or his wisdom. He employs only so much, as is necessa- 
ry to accomplish the design which he has in view. In 
his union with Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Logos could 
not, of course, be necessitated to put forth all his energy, 
or exhibit all his knowledge and wisdom, at once. Just 
so much of it, and no more, was manifested, as was re- 
quisite to constitute the character of an incarnate Medi- 
ator and Redeemer. When necessary, power and au- 
thority infinitely above human were displayed ; when 
otherwise, the human nature sympathized and suffered, 
like that of other men. 

Is this impossible for God ? Is there any thing here, 
which if it should be found in the Bible, would be an ad- 
equate reason for rejecting its claims to inspiration ? For 
my own part I cannot see the impossibility, or the ab- 
surdity of such a thing. How shall we limit the Deity, 
as to the ways in which he is to reveal himself to his 
creatures ? 

Why are we not as great a mystery to ourselves, as 
we can find in the doctrine before us ? We do not ap- 
propriate the affections of our minds to our bodies ; nor 
those of our bodies to our minds. Each is separate and 
distinct. Yet we refer either class to the whole man. 
Abraham is dead ; Abraham is living ; are both equally 
true. Abraham had a mortal and an immortal part % 
both made one person. How is it a greater mystery, if 
I say, Christ was God ; and Christ was man. He had 
a nature human and divine. One person indeed, in the 
sense in which Abraham was, he is not. Nor is there 
any created object, to which the union of Godhead with 
humanity can be compared. But shall we deny the pos- 
sibility of it on this account ? Or shall we tax with ab- 
surdity, that which is utterly beyond our reach to scan ? 



48 



I shrink from such an undertaking, and place myself in 
the attitude of listening to what the voice of revelation 
may dictate, in regard to this. It becomes us here to do 
this ; to prostrate ourselves before the Father of Lights, 
and say, Speak, Lord, for thy servants hear. Lord, 
what wilt thou have us to believe ! 

You may indeed find fault with us, that we speak of 
three persons in the Godhead, where there is but one na- 
ture ; and yet of but one person in Christ, where there 
are two natures. I admit that it is an apparent incon- 
sistency in the use of language ; and sincerely regret that 
it ever was adopted. Still, it is capable of some expla- 
nation. In the first case, person simply designates the 
idea, that there is some real distinction in the Godhead, 
in opposition to the opinion that it is merely nominal. 
In the second, it designates Christ, as he appears to us 
in the New Testament, clothed with a human body, and 
yet acting (as we suppose,) not only as man, but as also 
possessing divine power. We see the attributes of hu- 
man nature, in such intimate conjunction with those of 
the divine, that we cannot separate the agents; at least, 
we know not where to draw the line of separation, be- 
cause we do not know the manner in which the union is 
effected, or continued. We speak therefore of one per- 
son — i. e. one agent. And when we say that the two 
natures of Christ are united in one person, we mean to 
say that Divinity and humanity are brought into such a 
connexion in this case, that we cannot separate them, so 
as to make two distinct and separate agents. 

The present generation of Trinitarians, however, do 
not feel responsible for the introduction of such technical 
terms, in senses so variant from the common ideas at- 
tached to them. They merely take them as they find 



49 

them. For my own part, I have no attachment to them; 
I think them injudiciously chosen, and heartily wish they 
were by general consent entirely exploded. They cer- 
tainly serve, in most cases, merely to keep up the form 
of words without definite ideas ; and I fear, have been 
the occasion of many disputes in the Church. The things 
which are aimed at, by these terms, I would strenuously 
retain; because I believe in the divine origin and authori- 
ty of the Bible, and that its language, fairly interpreted, 
does inculcate these things. And candor, on your part, 
will certainly admit, that things only are worth any dis- 
pute. Logomachy is too trifling for a lover of truth. 



LETTER III. 

Reverend and Dear Sir, 

Thus far I have endeavoured to show, that the real 
question at issue between us, in regard to a distinction in 
the Godhead, and the divinity of the Saviour, cannot be 
decided, independently of the Scriptures. There is no 
such absurdity or inconsistency in either of these doc- 
trines, as will justify us in rejecting them without inves- 
tigation. The question whether they are true or not, 
belongs entirely and purely to Revelation. If you admit 
this; then the simple question between us is, what does 
Revelation say ? — We are agreed that the Bible is the 
word of God; that whatever " Christ taught, either dur- 
ing his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, is 
of divine authority." We are agreed in most things of 
any importance, as to our principles of interpretation. 
The principles by which all books are to be interpreted, 
7 



50 



are those which apply to the interpretation of the Bible ; 
for the very plain reason which you have given, that 
when God condescends to speak and write, it is accord- 
ing to the established rules of human language. What 
better than an enigma would the Scriptures be, if such 
were not the case ? An inspired interpreter would be as 
necessary, as an inspired prophet or apostle was, first to 
compose the books of Scripture. 

From this great and fundamental principle of all in- 
terpretation, it is easy to see, that the grammatical anal- 
ysis of the words of any passage, i. e. an investigation of 
their meaning in general, of their syntactical connexion, 
of their idiom, of their relation to the context, and (of 
course,) of their local meaning, must be the essential pro- 
cess in determining the sense of any text or part of Scrip- 
ture. These are the primary laws of interpretation in 
all the Classics, and in all other books ; laws which are 
uniform, and which cannot be violated without at once 
plunging into the dark and boundless field of conjectural 
exegesis. Whatever aid I may get from other sources, 
to throw light upon my text, it must be that which is 
superadded to the explanation that these rules will af- 
ford. These rules are founded simply in the fact, that 
every writer wishes and expects to be understood by his 
cotemporaries, and therefore uses language as they do. 
We presume this of the sacred writers ; and apply to 
them, as to the Classics, (excepting we allow for He- 
brew-Greek idiom in the New Testament,) the common 
and universal rules of grammatical interpretation. 

Admitting then the fundamental principles of gram- 
matical interpretation, as the best and surest guide to 
the sense of any writer ; I can never supersede these by 
the introduction of any principles, which I may suppose 



51 



or conjecture to have influenced this writer. I am not to 
violate the obvious principles of grammatical interpreta- 
tion, for the sake of saving any inconsistency, absurdity, 
or contradiction, in any author ; not even in any scriptu- 
ral writer. 

I must here explain myself, however, in order to 
prevent mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scrip- 
tures certainly stand on different ground, from that on 
which any other book rests, in regard to their claims up- 
on our belief, that they are *a Revelation from God. 
What other book can claim well authenticated miracles 
for its support ; or can exhibit prophetic declarations 
that have been fulfilled ; or can glory in such a devel- 
opment of the principles of piety and virtue — of love to 
God, and benevolence and beneficence to men ? Just in 
proportion then, as these evidences influence my mind 
to believe that the Bible is of divine origin, in the same 
proportion it becomes improbable to me that this Bible 
contains absurdities, errors, or contradictions. When 
any apparent error or contradiction attracts my attention, 
I hesitate to pronounce it such as it appears to be, be- 
cause the evidences are so strong that the book is of di- 
vine original, I must do violence to my convictions to ad- 
mit that the same book contains either what is errone- 
ous or contradictory. I am slow then, to admit in any 
case such a sense to words in the Scriptures, as would 
make passages speak either absurdity or contradiction. 
But if there be any such ; and after all the light which 
I could gain, it should appear still to be a plain case, that 
there is an error in the sacred text ; then I must find a 
different reading; or give up the passage; or renounce the 
whole book. I may suspend an opinion while I live, as 
to doubtful cases. My convictions respecting the nature 



52 



and design of the Holy Scriptures ; the imperfection of 
my knowledge ; diffidence in myself — demand that I 
should act in this manner. But in any clear case ; where 
the meaning of a sacred writer,— what he did originally 
design to say, can be definitely and plainly made out by 
the common laws of interpretation ; and this meaning be 
erroneous, or contradict some other passage ; I have no 
right to put a constructive sense upon the words, and do 
violence to the passage to avoid any consequences, that 
may follow. I cannot honestly do it. The same com* 
mon sense and reason, which prescribe the laws of exe- 
gesis, decide that the meaning of a writer must be that 
which those laws determine it to be. Of course, if I put 
a gloss upon any passage, which represents it as convey- 
ing a different meaning from that which the laws of in- 
terpretation would assign to it, I may deceive others ; or 
I may subserve the interests of party : but I violate the 
reason which God has given me by such conduct, and act 
a part dishonest, and unworthy of an inquirer after truth. 

If the fundamental maxims of exegesis lead to the be- 
lief, that a writer of the New Testament has contradict 
ed himself, or another sacred writer ; then I must revert 
at once to the question, Is the book divine ? Can it be 
so, if there is contradiction ? This question I may settle 
(on my responsibility to God,) as I please, But I have 
no right to violate the fundamental rules of language, by 
forcing a meaning upon the w 7 riter to make him consist- 
ent, which it is obvious, on the universal principles of 
explaining language, he never had. In determining the 
question whether the writers of the New Testament 
were inspired, I must always, (in attending to the inter- 
nal evidence of the books.) consider whether they have 
contradicted each other. In determining this, the simple 



53 



rules of grammatical exegesis can never be violated. I 
must read this book, as I do all other books. Then, if 
there be contradiction, I reject its claims. If not, and I 
think the whole evidence is sufficient, I admit them. 
But at any subsequent period to this, when I have ad- 
mitted them, I am at no liberty to aver, that the writers 
never could have taught some particular principle, which 
I dislike ; and therefore do violence to the rules of gram- 
matical interpretation, in order to explain away any prin- 
ciple of this nature, which they seem to inculcate. My 
simple inquiry must be, what sentiment does the language 
of this or that passage, without violence or perversion of 
rule, convey ? When this question is settled, (philologi- 
cally not philosophically,) then I believe what is taught ; 
or else I reject the claim of divine authority, What 
can my own theories and reasonings, as to absurdity or 
the contrary in any particular doctrine, avail, in deter- 
mining whether a writer of the New Testament has 
taught this doctrine or not? My investigation must be 
conducted independently of my philosophy, by my philol- 
ogy. Then, (when I have obtained his meaning by the 
simple and universal rules of expounding language,) I 
choose the course that I must take ; I believe his asser- 
tion, or reject his authority. 

If these be not sound and universal maxims of inter- 
pretation, I confess myself a stranger to the whole sub- 
ject; nor can I help thinking that you will accord with 
me, at once, in the views that have been expressed. 

Guided then by these principles, let us now come to 
the investigation of a few passages in the New Testa- 
ment, which concern the point of the divine nature of 
Christ. I take this point, because you have dwelt most 
upon it; and because, very obviously, when this is admit- 



54 



ted or rejected, no possible objection can be felt to ad- 
mitting or rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. 

You will not require of me, however, to examine at 
length every text of the New Testament, which I sup- 
pose to have any connexion with the subject in question. 
I must be permitted, in order to save time and patience, 
to select only such texts, whose language appears to be 
genuine, and above the condemnation of textual criti- 
cism ; such as appear to me to contain the best and most 
decisive proof of the point in question. Believing the 
New Testament to be of divine origin and authority, 
you will permit me to add, that I cannot think the deci- 
sion of any question depends on the number of times, in 
which the terms of that decision are repeated. 

I observe then, 

I. The New Testament gives to Christ the appella- 
tion of God, in such a manner, as that according to the 
fair rules of interpretation only the Supreme God can 
be meant. 

A conspicuous passage in proof of this, I should find 
in John i. 1 — 3. Ev ap% r (i yjv 6 Aoyog, xat 6 Aoyog qv 
npog nov Seov, xat Seog yjv 6 Aoyog. Ovtog yjv ev ap%i) 
%pog nov ®eov. Uavta 8i 9 avtov eyevew xai %(apig av- 
tov eyeveto ovSe eV, 6 yeyovev. " In the beginning was 
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 
All things were made by him ; and without him was not 
any thing made, that was made." Verse 10, ... . xai 6 
%oG[iog $l* avtov eytveto, " and the world was made by 
him. 5 ' 

All known Manuscripts agree in the text here. 
Griesbach has indeed recorded, that for 6 Seog there is 
a conjectural reading, ®sov ; and that for xai ©eog, 
6 %oyog, there is a conjectural reading of ®eog yiv xai 



55 



6 yloyog. The first of these conjectures was made by 
Crellius ; (Initium Evang. Johan. restauratum per L. M. 
Artemonium, P. i. c. 1.) The reason of making such a 
conjecture Crellius has given. " The greater Christ is, 
compared with other gods, (the Father excepted,) the 
less can he be expressly called God, lest he should be tak- 
en for the supreme God the Father." And again ; " If he 
(Christ,) had been expressly called God by the sacred 
writers, and had not always been distinguished from God, 
the sacred writers would have given an occasion for unskil- 
ful men, to regard him as the Supreme God" (Init. Evang. 
Johan. p. 295.) To liberate John from being taxed with 
this imprudence, Crellius proposed to substitute ®eov for 
©fog, in John i. 1. ; so as to say, the Logos was of God, 
instead of saying, as John has done, that He was God. 

The second conjectural reading is supported by equal 
authority. Bahrdt, (in Neuesten Offenbarungen,) pro- 
posed it as a happy expedient, to relieve the text from 
the difficulty and embarrassment, under which it now 
appeared to labour. 

I have a great regard for the labours and learning of 
Griesbach ; but I am constrained to ask here, why should 
he have condescended to notice conjectures so gratui- 
tous, and unfounded (not to say improbable,) as these ? 

I proceed to the explanation of the text. Ev ap%vi 9 
corresponds exactly with the Hebrew n^fc£WO, Gen. i» 1. 
I cannot embrace the opinion of those critics who think 
that the phrase ev o.p%r\ of itself simply, signifies from 
eternity. Although I believe that the Logos did exist 
from eternity, I do not think it is proved directly by this 
expression. (Compare Gen. i. 1.) That existence from 
eternity is implied, however, may be properly admitted. 
Ev ap%Yi is equivalent to sv ap#$ xod^iov^ in the begin- 
ning of the world, i e. before the world was made : and 



56 

so agreeing in sense with the phrase John xvii. o, 64 the 
glory that I had with thee before the world was ;" and 
Eph. i. 4., " before the foundation of the world." To 
say with Crellius, that by apZV ls meant the commence- 
ment of preaching the gospel, or the beginning of Christian 
instruction, would be making John gravelv tell us, that 
before the Logos preached the gospel, he had an exist- 
ence. 

Before the world was created then, the Logos exist- 

7 o 

ed. Who or what was this Logos? A person; or an 
attribute of God ? A real agent ; or only the wisdom, 
or reason, or power of God ? 

It is of no importance in settling this question, that 
we should know with certainty, whence John derived 
the appellation, Logos. The most probable reason, in 
my mind, is, that this appellation is bestowed on Christ 
in reference to his becoming the Instructer, or Teacher 
of mankind ; the medium of communication between 
God and them. Be this however, as it may; the Lo- 
gos appears to be a person, and not merely an attribute. 
For first, the attributes of God are no where else per- 
sonified, by the New Testament writers ; i. e. the usage 
of the New Testament writers is against this. Secondly, 
As Logos can properly mean here only wisdom and word, 
(if considered as an abstract term, or designating an at- 
tribute merely,) I cannot perceive how the wisdom of 
God, or the word (in the abstract sense) of God, " be- 
came flesh and dwelt among us," v. 14. ; or w r hy John 
should select either the wisdom or word of God, as any 
more concerned with the incarnation, v. 14, than the be- 
nevolence of God, or the mercy of God, which one might 
suppose would be the attributes of God more specially 
displayed in the incarnation. Thirdly, If Logos mean 



57 



here the power of God, as many assert, the exposition 
is attended with the same difficulties. Fourthly, If it 
mean, as others aver, the power of God putting itself 
forth, i. e. in creation, it is liable to the same objections. 
In short, make it any attribute of God thus personified, 
and you introduce a mode of writing which the N. Tes- 
tament no where else displays ; and which even the Old 
Testament exhibits but once, Prov. viii. ; and this in po- 
etry of the most animated and exalted nature. 

Yet this is not the chief difficulty. To what class 
of men could John address the affirmation, tkat the Lo- 
gos, (ivisdom, word, or power of God,) was " with God ?" 
Where did these singular heretics suppose the power of 
God was, except with him? or where, his wisdom or 
his word ? And a singular pertinacity too, in their strange 
opinion they must have had, to induce the Apostle to 
repeat with emphasis in the second verse, that this Lo- 
<£0S was with God. What would be said of a man, who 
should gravely assert, that " the power of Peter is with 
Peter ; or his wisdom; or his word?" Suppose he should 
add, " The power or wisdom of Peter, is Peter ;" with 
what class of mystics should we rank him ? Yet John 
adds ; The Logos was God. 

Until then some heretics can be discovered of the 
apostolic age, who maintained that the attributes of God 
were not with him, I cannot explain how the apostle could 
assert twice, successively and emphatically, that they were 
with him. Equally difficult is it for me to divine, how he 
could say that any attribute, (power, or wisdom,) was 
God; understanding the word God in any sense you 
please. If it mean supreme God ; then it reduces itself 
to this, either that one attribute is the supreme God ; or 
that there are as many Gods as attributes. If it mean 
8 



58 



an inferior God, then the wisdom of God being an infe- 
rior God, supposes that his other attributes are superior 
ones ; or else that his wisdom is exalted to the place of 
quasi God, while his other attributes occupy a lower 
place. 

If it should however be said, that the supposition of 
there having been a sect of heretics, who held that the 
attributes of God were not with him, is not necessary to 
justify the apostle for having penned the first verse of 
his gospel ; but that we may regard this verse as writ- 
ten simply for general instruction : then I would ask, 
whether a revelation from heaven is necessary to in- 
struct us, that the attributes of being are with that being ; 
or what can be thought of the power of God being God 
himself? 

Proceed we to the second clause ; Kcu 6 %>oyos vjv 
7tpog tov ®£ov ; and the Logos was with God ; i. e. as all 
agree, with God the Father. Compare verses 14 and 
18 ; also chap, xvii., 5, and 1 John, i. 1, 2, which make 
the point clear. Is this expression capable of any tole- 
rable interpretation, without supposing that the Logos, 
who was with God, was in some respect or other, differ- 
ent, or diverse from that God with whom he was f This 
Logos was the same that became incarnate, ver. 14., 
that made the most perfect revelation of the will and 
character of God to men, ver. 18., and was called Christ. 
He was therefore, in some respect diverse from the 
Father, and by no means to be confounded with him. 

Kou Qeog yjv o Tioyog ; And the Logos was God. It 
has been proposed, (in Impr. Vers, of N. Test.,) to ren- 
der the w r ord 0eog, a god. Does then the Christian Re- 
velation admit of Gods superior and inferior ? Or to 
what class of inferior gods does the Logos belong ? And 



59 



how much would such a theory of divine natures differ 
from that which admits a Jupiter Optiraus, Maximus, and 
Dii majores et minores ? 

But it is said, that "0eog is destitute of the article, and 
therefore cannot designate the divine Being, who is Su- 
preme." This observation, however, is very far from be- 
ing justified, either by the usage of the sacred writers, 
or the principles of Greek syntax. Among instances 
where the Supreme God is certainly designated and yet 
the article is omitted, the inquirer may consult the very 
chapter in question, ver. 6, 13, 18 ; also, Matt. xix. 26. — 
Luke xvi. 13.— John ix. 33. — xvi. 30. — Rom. viii. 8.— 
1 Cor. i. 3.— Gal. i. ].— Ephes. ii. 8.— Heb. ix. 14. Be- 
sides ; every reader of Greek knows, that where the 
subject of a proposition, (in this case 6 Xoyog,) has the 
article, the predicate (®eo$,) omits it. Such is Greek 
usage ; and from this dissent only propositions of a re^ 
ciprocating or convertible nature ; as in ver. 4, of the 
chapter in question. It may be added too, that if the 
writer had said, Kat o %oyo$ vjv 6 Seoq ; it would have 
conveyed a very different sense from the proposition as 
it now stands. He would then have said, The Logos is 
the God, with whom he is ; whereas I understand ©fog 
here to mean the divine nature, simply considered, for 
which it so often stands in other places. 

I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of 
the somewhat diverse meaning of Seog here cannot be 
drawn from the word itself; but must be deduced from 
the circumstances of the affirmation, united with the sup- 
position that John did assert, and did mean to assert, 
something that is intelligible. There is indeed no diffi- 
culty, in taking ©cog (Gorf) in the same sense in both 
clauses. To interpret the verse thus, would represent 



60 

John as saying, that while Christ was God, or truly di- 
vine ; there was, at the same time, a sense in which he 
was with God. Now, how can this be understood as 
making any possible sense, unless a distinction in the God- 
head be admitted ; viz. that the Father is not in all re- 
spects the Son ? 

But, separately from objections which an opponent 
might feel to understanding the word God here, in a sense 
somewhat diverse in the two clauses ; I should have no 
hesitation in so doing. Every word takes a sense adapt- 
ed to its connexion. Such is the rule which must be a- 
dopted, after we have once conceded that a writer uses 
words with propriety, and designs to be understood. So, 
when our Saviour says, " Let the dead bury their dead 
the connexion requires us to explain it thus ; 6 Let those 
who are morally or spiritually dead bury those who are 
corporeally so.' It were easy to accumulate examples, 
where the very same word, in the very same verse, has 
two different shades of sense. The exigency of the pas- 
sage, [exigentia loci,) is the rule of interpretation which 
guides us here. 

I understand John then, as affirming that the Logos 
was God, and yet was with God ; viz. that he was tru- 
ly divine, but still divine in such a manner, that there 
did exist a distinction between him and the Father. 
I take God in one case to mean, (as in a great number 
of cases it does mean,) God as Father ; in the other case 
(which is equally common,) as a description of divine na- 
ture, — of the divinity, without reference to the distinc- 
tion of Father. 

Least of all, have those a right to object to this, who 
here make the meaning of God, in the second instance, 
to be infinitely different from its meaning in the first in- 



61 



stance ; understanding by one, a created, or derived and 
finite being ; by the other the self existent, independent, 
and infinite God. 

If you ask now, What could be the object of John in 
asserting that the Logos was with God t I answer, that 
the phrase to be with one, (uvai npog viva,) indicates 
conjunction, communion, familiarity, society. See Mark ix. 
19. Compare too John i. 18, where the only begotten 
Son is said to be " in the bosom, (a; rov xo%nov 9 ) of the 
Father which is a phrase of similar import. 

To illustrate the meaning of the phrase to be with 
God, it is useful also to compare those cases, where 
Christians are promised as the summit of their felicity, 
that they shall be with God and Christ, and be where 
they are. See among other passages, John xiv. 2, 3. — 
xii. 26. — xvii. 24. — 1 Thess. iv. 17. Compare Rom. viii. 
17.— 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12.— Colos. hi. 1—4. 

In John xvii. 5, Christ speaks of that " glory, which 
he had with the Father, before the world was." From 
all these passages taken together, it would seem that the 
phrase of the Logos being with God, amounts to asserting 
that he was conjunctissimus Deo, most intimately connected 
with him. If you ask me, how ? I answer freely that I 
cannot tell. The Evangelist has asserted the fact, but 
has not added one word to explain the modus. If I could 
explain it ; then I could define the distinction that I be- 
lieve to exist in the Godhead. 

But why should John assert such a connexion ? In 
opposition, I answer to those in early times, who assert- 
ed that Christ was a being not only distinct from God, 
but an emanation from him? And why should he assert 
at the same time that the Logos was God ?■ — In opposi- 
sition, as I must think, to the same persons, who strenu- 
ously denied his Divinity. 



62 



But does the Evangelist mean here, to assert of the 
Logos that he is God in the true and supreme sense, or 
not ? This is the fundamental question between us. The . 
probability drawn from the New Testament usage of the 
word Seog, (which no were else employs Qeog simply and 
singly, except to designate the Supreme God,) must be 
admitted strongly to favour the idea, that Christ is as- 
serted to be divine. I readily allow that the word God 
has various applications, in the Old Testament ; that it 
is applied, (though only in the plural number) to magis- 
trates; that it is used to designate those who stand, as it 
were, in the place of God for a time, as Moses was to 
be for a god to Pharoah, (Exod. vii. 1 ;) and instead of 
God to Aaron, (Exod. iv. 16.) But it is not possible to 
mistake any instances of this nature. The adjuncts, or 
context, always guard effectually against mistake. Men, 
or inferior beings are never called God, or gods simply. 
We read of a " god to Pharaoh," — and " I have said ye 
are gods, but ye shall die like men ; the god of Ekron ; 
the god of the Ammonites, the gods of the heathen, &c." 
Is a mistake possible here ? — But the Logos is called 
God simply. Nor is this all. Even admitting that the 
name determined nothing, (and for sake of argument I 
am willing to admit it ;) yet the writer has added expla- 
nations of his meaning, which seem to place it beyond 
the reach of fair debate, what he intended to assert by 
the expression in question. 

Uavta Si 9 avtov syevew xou #6)ptg avtov eyeveto ovSe 

sj>, 6 ysyovev 6 %oG(io$ avrov eyeveto. " All 

things were [made,] by him ; and without him was noth- 
ing [made,] which was [made]. The world was [made] 
by him." 

I have excluded the word made, by placing it in 



63 



brackets, merely to show that the sense is in nowise chan- 
ged, if we listen to those critics, who tell us that ey&veHo 
never means made, and render the passage accordingly. 
But nothing can be farther from correctness, than such 
an assertion, respecting eyevero. Accordingly noieo and 
ywo^ai are used as synonymes ; as in James iii. 9. Com- 
pare Gen. i. 26 in the Septuagint. — -Gen. ii. 4 — -Is. xlviii.7; 
and the cases where ywoyiai means to make, or produce. 
are so numerous and obvious, that a moment's delay 
in respect to this part of the subject would be useless. 
Schleusner's Lexicon, under the word yivo\L<u, will fur- 
nish adequate proof. If not; read the commentary of 
Theodoret on the two first chapters of Genesis ; which 
places the question beyond debate. 

But what are the tfa navta {the universe) which the 
Logos made, or caused ? "The moral world — the Chris- 
tian church ;" answers Faustus Socinus. But in the way 
of this, lie two difficulties : the first, that a part of these 
Toe navta are (verse 10) represented as xoGpog, the world; 
a term never applied to the Christian church, in the New 
Testament, nor to men as morally emended by the gos- 
pel : the second, that this very world (%oG[iog) which he 
created, avtov ovx eyvo 9 Did not know, or acknowledge 
him ; whereas the distinguishing trait of Christians is, 
that they know Christ ; that they know the only true God, 
and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. 

The ta navta then, which the Logos created, means, 
(as common usage, and the exigency of the passage re- 
quire,) the universe; the worlds material and immaterial; 
(ver. 10). Here consequently is a passage, in which be- 
yond all reasonable doubt, Christ is called God ; and 
Avhere the context, instead of furnishing us with reasons 
(as is usual, when the term is applied to inferior beings,) 
for understanding this word in the inferior sense, has di~ 



64 



rectly and unequivocally taught us that this Beog, (God), 
who was Logos, did create the universe. The question 
then is reduced simply to this state ; viz. Whether he, 
who created the Universe, is truly and properly divine ? 
On this question I shall make a few remarks, when I 
have considered some other passages, which ascribe cre- 
ation to Christ. 

Heb. i. 10 — 12. Kat' Xv xai? 0Lp%a$ 9 xvpis, tviv yqv 
sdefiehiQGag, xai epya tov %siQ<xv Gov eiGiv ol ovpavoi. Av- 
<roi anoXovvnai^ gv Se hia^ievEig* xai navteg 6g ipanov 
naXaiadyiGovra^ xai ogei rtspiSohaiov i%i%ug avnovg% xai 
aXkayYiGovtaC Gv Se 6 avrog ft, xai ra ervj Gov ovx ex- 
fai^ovai. " And Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid 
the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the 
works of thine hands : they shall perish, but thou re- 
mainest ; and they shall wax old as doth a garment ; and 
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be 
changed : but thou art the same, and thy years shall not 
fail." 

These words are spoken of the Son of God, being 
intimately connected by the conjunction (xai) with ver. 
8, where it is written, " But unto the Son he saith," &c. 
According to the laws of grammar, and most clearly ac- 
cording to the nature and design of the Apostle's argu- 
ment, the ellipsis to be supplied after xai (and,) in the 
beginning of the tenth verse, is, " And [to the Son he 
saith,~\ Thou, Lord," &c. No other connexion or exposi- 
tion can be pointed out, which does not make a violent 
divulsion of the passage, from the chain and connexion of 
the writer's argument. 

The question still remains; What is meant by found- 
ing the earth, and the heavens being the work of Christ's 
hands ?' Compare now the passages, in which Jehovah 
is said to have founded the earth, and in which the ere- 



6!) 



ation of it is indubitably meant. They may be found, in 
Ps. xxiv. 2 — lxxxix* 11 — civ. 6 — -cxix. 90— Job xxxviii. 4. 
Prov.iii. 19— Is. xlviii. 13— li. 13.— Zech. 12. 1; where if 
you inspect the Septuagint, you will see the very verb 
§£[i6%ia employed, which the apostle uses in our text. 

in regard to the " heavens being the work of Christ's 
hands it is an expression plainly equivalent to the 
other, and signifies the work of creation. Thus, Ps. viiL 
4,6; "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy 
hands which is a parallel with, " The moon and stars 
which thou hast ordained," (Septuagint, £0s^£/UG)(7a$.) 
So in verse 6th; " Arid hast placed him over the work of 
thy hands ; All things hast thou put under his feet i.e. 
placed him over the creation. 

To settle the meaning of the phrase creating the hca~ 
vens and the earth, (i. e. to show that it means creating all 
things,) compare Gen. i. 1 — Ex. xx. 11 — xxxi. 17 — Neh. 
ix. 6 — Ps. cxxi. 2 — cxxiv. 8 — cxxxiv. 3, and many other 
places that a Concordance will supply. 

It will be remembered, that the passage in question, 
(Heb. i.10 — 12,) is a quotation from the Old Testament ; 
and that to quote the language of the Old Testament, 
therefore, in order to explain it, is peculiarly appropri- 
ate and necessary. 

Could any one, unembarrassed by peculiarity of sys- 
tem, ever suspect that founding the earth, and the heavens 
being the work of his hands, could mean any thing less 
than the creation of the universe ? Yet we have been 
told by some distinguished Unitarians, that the heavens 
mean the Christian state or dispensation, and the earth 
the Jewish one. But first, this is against the usage of 
the language, either in the Old or New Testament ; 
there being nothing to support such a sense of it. Isaiah 
' 9 



66 



indeed speaks of creating a new heaven, and a new earth, 
(lxv. 17.) and of planting the heavens and the earth, (li.16.) 
in a moral sense; i. e. making a moral change or creation. 
But then the language itself in the first case indicates? 
of course, that the old creation is not meant ; and in the 
second case, the context makes it as clear, what kind of 
heaven and earth is to be planted or established ; name- 
ly, the Jewish church and state is to be renewed and es- 
tablished. The meaning assigned then by the Unitarians 
in question to the passage in Heb. i., is against the plain 
and perpetual usage of the Scriptures, wherever such 
expressions occur in an unlimited form, as they do in the 
passage under examination. 

But secondly ; if the Jewish and Christian states are 
meant here, in what sense are they to wax old as a gar- 
ment, and to be changed ? Of the Jewish state, this 
might without much difficulty be affirmed. But how the 
Christian dispensation is to be changed ; how that " king- 
dom, which shall have no end," (Luke i. 33,) is to " per- 
ish ;" is what I am unable to explain. 

" It is a moral creation," says Artemonius (i. e. Crel- 
lius, Init. Evang. Johan.,) " of which Christ is the au- 
thor." This however does not explain the matter ; for 
how is it that the moral creation of Christ is to perish — 
and be changed, i. e. annihilated ? Most obviously, his 
moral creation is to be eternal. 

Another method of explaining this subject has been, 
to aver that the passage quoted here by the apostle, in 
the original (Ps. cii. 25- — 27) is plainly applicable to Je- 
hovah only ; and that none would conjecture, from the 
.perusal of this Psalm, that Christ could be meant. 

Conceding this, (and it would be difficult not to concede 
it,) what is the consequence ? Either that the apostle 



67 



has applied directly and without qualification to Christ, 
language used by an inspired writer of the Old Testa- 
ment to designate the Creator of the world, with his 
eternal and immutable nature ; or that he has, (in a most 
singular way indeed for a man of piety and honesty,) ac- 
commodated language descriptive of the infinite Jehovah, 
to a created and dependent being. The word xvpie 
(Lord) in the Greek, corresponds to the word Jeho- 
vah in the original Hebrew ; the Septuagint having 
commonly rendered it in this manner. And though fiVH 
(Jehovah) is not in the Hebrew text, (Ps. cii. 26,) yet it 
is undoubtedly understood there, as the Nom. to " thou 
hast founded ;" which is evident from the preceding con- 
text. Christ then is called by the Apostle here, Jehovah ; 
and eternity, immutability, and the creation of the universe 
are ascribed to him. # 

I cannot think that the paraphrase of Grotius, on 
the passage in question, deserves a serious refutation. 
"Thou wast the cause," says he, "that the earth was 
founded, and on thy account the heavens were made." 
If this be not a different thing from what the language 
of the apostle naturally means, or can mean, 1 confess, I 

* I readily admit, that x.vgto<; is not always synonymous with Jeho- 
vah. But in passages selected from the Old Testament, in which pas- 
sages the word Jehovah is there used, x.vpto$ stands in the Septuagint 
and in the New Testament as the translation of it. Therefore wgm 
in the New Testament must of course, in such cases, have the same 
meaning as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The reason why Kvgie& is 
used by the New Testament writers, as the translation of Jehovah in the 
Hebrew Scriptures, is, that the Jews in reading their sacred writings s 
were not accustomed to pronounce the word Jehovah (mrr) but read, 
for the most part, "]nK, Lord, Kvptos, in the room of it, This custom 
is at least as old as the Septuagint Version, which translates niiV by 
xt/£<os, and thus exhibits proof, that the modern custom of reading ■Jlltf 
for mrr was then religiously observed, 



68 



know not airy hounds which may he set to paraphrastic 
and mystical exegesis. Suppose now the Gnostics, who 
maintained that evil demons and not Jehovah created 
the world, should have paraphrased the first verse in 
Genesis, in exactly the same manner; "Thou Jehovah 
wast the cause, why the heavens and the earth were 
created :" and when asked how this could be, they should 
have replied, "out of enmity to thee the evil demons 
brought this matter into existence ;" then they would 
have had an argument to take away the creatorship of 
Jehovah, exactly like that by which Grotius intends to 
remove the evidence of Christ's divinity. 

Col. i. 15 — 17. r 0g eGHiv eixcav Hov Seov Hov aopaHov, 
npaHoHoxog naayjg xHicsog 9 cHi ev avnid sxHicdyj Ha nav*a> 
Ha ev Hoig ovpavoig xai Ha £rti trig yyjg^ Ha opava xai Ha ao- 
para, elhe Spovoi, elhe xvpioHYjHsg, elhe ap%ai, site e%ovci- 
m* Ha navHa hC avHov xat sig avnov ExHiGHaC xai av- 
Hog sdHi npo navHQv, xai Ha navna ev avHCi ovveoh^xe' 
" Who is the image of the invisible God, the head of all 
creation ; for by him were all things created, both ce- 
lestial and terrestrial, visible and invisible, of whatever 
order or grade they are ; all things were created by 
him and for him. Therefore he was before all things, 
and by him are all things sustained," 

The places in which I have departed from our com- 
mon version, are not differently rendered in order to 
make tfiem favor the cause which I have espoused; for 
they determine nothing respecting the point now at is- 
sue. They are rendered as above, merely to make the 
meaning of the passage, in general, as plain as the nature 
of the case will permit. 

Because Christ is said, verse 20, " to reconcile 
(xaHaTiXa^ai) all things unto himself," which is explain- 
ed to be " things in heaven, and things on earth and 



69 



afterwards is represented as breaking down the wall of 
partition between Jews and Gentiles ; some ingenious 
commentators have supposed that " things in heaven, 
and things on earth" mean Jews and Gentiles, How 
very unnatural this explanation is, every one who reads 
the passage unbiassed, it seems to me, cannot help feel- 
ing. And in w r hat tolerable sense, can the Jews and 
Gentiles be called " things visible and invisible ?" And 
what are the various orders and ranks in these two class- 
es ? By " reconciling things in heaven and things ou 
earth," seems to be meant, bringing into union, (by a new 
and special bond of intercommunication,) under one great 
head, i. e. Christ, both angels and men. In like manner 
on earth, the two great parties, Jews and Gentiles, are 
united together. But why Christ should be called " the 
image of the invisible God," and the " head (npcdtotoxog) 
of all creation," because he is the instrument of bringing 
Jews and Gentiles together merely, is not apparent to 
me. But when you understand the words of the apostle, 
as describing the creation of the world celestial, and ter- 
restrial, (ot ovpavoL xai n y>?, comp. Heb. i. 10 — 12,) and 
ascribing it to Christ; then you find sufficient reason, for 
designating him by the exalted appellations in question, 

A moral creation has also been affirmed to be the 
creation, here ascribed to Christ. But the words in 
such a connexion and with such adjuncts, are no where 
else used in this sense. Moreover, in what sense has 
the moral creation by Christ affected the angels ? The 
good ones needed no repentance or pardon ; the ba^ 
ones have never sought or obtained either. 

I must therefore, until I see different light shed 
over the passage in question, regard it as very clearly 
ascribing creation to Christ. 



70 



But you will say, perhaps, that in John i. 3, " All 
things are said to be made 8ia XptCtoi;, by Christ, as 
the instrumental, not the principal cause ; the preposi- 
tion Aia denoting such cause. In Col. i. 16, all things in 
like manner are said to have been created by Christ, 
avtov y) and in Heb. i. 2, God is said to have cre- 
ated the worlds by his Son ; Ata ov (sc. vlov) xai tovg at- 
wvag enounce. 

The allegation however, that Ata does not designate 
the principal cause as well as the instrumental, can by no 
means be supported. In Romans xi. 36, " All things are 
said to be of God, (f£ avtov ;) and by God, avtov ;) 
the very form of Expression applied to Christ, in Colos. 
i 16 — 20. So Heb. ii. 10 ; " For it became him, (God, 
the Father,) Si* ov, for whom are all things, and by 
whom (oV ov) are all things," &c. 1 Cor. i. 9 ; " God 
is faithful, by whom (oV ov) ye were called into the fel- 
lowship of his Son," &c. Moreover, ex and 8ia are 
sometimes interchanged as equivalents or synonymes. 
See Romans hi. 30. So also ev and &a, Col. i. 16 ; ta 
rtavta ev avta) exticdyi and oV avtov extiatar, i. e. ev and 
Bia are used as of the same import. See Schleusner's 
Lex. in voc. $ia. 

The difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase, 
" by whom (oV ov) he, the Father, made the worlds 
Heb. i. 2. The apostle has added sufficient in verses 
10 — 12, as it would seem, to prevent mistake here. If 
however, the difficulty seem to press still, it may be 
compared to Hosea i. 7 ; "I (Jehovah) will have mercy 
upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehova, 
PlVTO." Is the second Jehovah, the instrumental cause 
in this case ; or belongs the whole merely to form of 
expression? Still, may not the apostle design to as- 



71 



sert, that the Godhead in respect to the distinction of 
Son, was in a special manner concerned with the creation of 
the worlds 1 ? What is there impossible, or improbable 
in this ? 

From the passages of Scripture thus far considered, 
it appears plain, that the apostles have ascribed the 
creation of the universe to Christ. And now we come, 
in order, to the consideration of the simple question, 
whether he who created the world is really and truly- 
divine ? 

First then, let me ask ; If the act of creation does not 
designate the being, who effects it, to be omniscient, om- 
nipotent, and independent ; then is it possible for me 
to conceive of any thing, which does or can designate a 
Divine Being ? To bring this world into existence from 
nothing ; to establish such perfect harmony and design 
through all the operations of nature ; to set in motion 
unnumbered worlds and systems of worlds, and all in the 
most perfect harmony and order, requires more intelli- 
gence, more power, and more wisdom, than ever belong- 
ed to any finite being. And if these things do not char- 
acterise the infinite Being, then no proof can be adduced 
that such a Being exists. 

It is in vain to tell me here, that the creation of the 
universe can be performed by delegation ; by an inferior 
and subordinate Being. What can be meant by omnip- 
otence, omniscience, and infinite wisdom, (all of which 
are visibly necessary in a Creator,) being delegated ? Can 
God delegate his perfections ? If so, then the Gnostics, 
in arguing with you, might every where assert, that the 
God of the Jews created the world only by delegation ; 
that he was not therefore the Supreme God. Your re- 
ply would be — Is then the act of creating the Universe 



72 



one which any finite or secondary being can perform ? 
If this do not designate the absolute, supreme, omnipo- 
tent, and omniscient Being; then no proof that such a 
Being exists can possibly be adduced. 

Our reply to you then, shall be in the very words 
that you would use, in disputing with a Gnostic. Christ 
is the Creator ; and Christ must therefore be God. 

Accordingly, the Bible every where appeals to crea- 
tive power, as the peculiar and pre-eminent attribute of 
the Supreme God ; and attributes it solely to Jehovah. 
Read, for instance, Gen. ii. 2, 3 — Ex. xx. 1 1 — Is. xliv. 24 
— Jer. x. 12 — Ps. viii. 3, 4 — cii. 25, and innumerable other 
places. Read Isaiah xl., and onward, where God by his 
prophet makes a most solemn challenge to all polythe- 
ists, to bring the objects of their worship into competition 
with him; and designates himself as distinguished from 
them all, by his being " the Creator of the ends of the 
earth," (v. 28 ;) and by his having formed and arranged 
the heavens, (v. 26.) So in Psalm xix., the heavens are 
appealed to as exhibiting his glory, and the firmament as 
displaying the work of his hands; i. e. as affording evi- 
dence that he only could have formed them. Need I 
say, that the Old Testament is filled with passages which 
ascribe the work of creation to Jehovah alone ? Who 
does not find them every where intermixed, in the most 
delightful and affecting manner, with all the instructions 
of the sacred Hebrew writers ? 

Now if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create 
the universe ; why should all the instructions of the Old 
Testament be so framed, as inevitably to lead the Jew- 
ish nation to disbelieve and reject this fact ? Specially 
so, as the Jews were so very strongly inclined to poly- 
theism : and such a doctrine would have been very 



73 



agreeable to their notion of things ? And why, after a 
lapse of so many centuries, should the writers of the New 
Testament overturn all that the Hebrew Scriptures had 
taught on this subject, and lead men to admit, that a fi- 
nite being could and did create the world ? Most of all ; 
how could Paul say, (Rom. i. 20,) that the heathen were 
without excuse, for not acknowledging the eternal power 
and godhead of the Divinity from the bare evidence, 
which his creating power afforded ; from considering 

the THINGS THAT WERE MADE ? 

And is this truth, that the Deity possesses eternal 
power and godhead, so plain then, and so easily deduced 
from creating energy, that the very heathen are desti- 
tute of all excuse, who do not see and admit it ; and yet 
is it an object of Christianity to bring us back towards the 
very polytheism, on account of which the apostle condem- 
ned them ? To bring us to worship the creature, as the 
Creator ? Does Christianity contradict a fundamental 
truth of natural religion ? And after reading such a pas- 
sage in Paul ; can it be possible to suppose, that he ascrib- 
ed the creation of the world to any but the true God only? 
Read Acts xvii. 23—26, and compare John i. 1 — 3, & 10; 
— Heb. i. 10 — 12; Colos. i. 15 — 17: then say, Is it possi- 
ble to admit the rules of interpretation, which you have 
laid down, and not admit that the apostles meant to as- 
sert, that Christ is the Creator of the Universe ? — And 
if so ; is it possible to deny that he is truly divine ? 

It were easy to produce more passages, which ascribe 
the same works to Christ as to God; (as John v. 17 — 23. 
— xiv. 9, 10.) But as the vindication of these would 
swell these letters beyond their proper length, I shall 
not enter into the discussion of them at present. I am 
not anxious to increase the number of witnesses ; for 
10 



74 



acknowledging the New Testament to be of divine au- 
thority, I consider whatever it plainly declares once, to 
be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the tes- 
timony therefore, is more the object of my solicitude 
than the number of witnesses : a point, I may add, in 
which many, who have defended our sentiments, have 
greatly erred. 

I proceed therefore, to other texts of Scripture in 
which Christ is declared to be God. 

Rom. ix. 5. f £lv oi narep£g 9 xcu e£ &v 6 Xpcrrog, to 
xata Gaoxa, 6 av sni navtav Ssog evXoy^rog eig vovg ai- 
cwag. A[iviv. " Whose are the Fathers ; and from whom 
in respect to the flesh (his human nature) Christ [des- 
cended] who is the supreme God, blessed for ever, Amen." 

In regard to this text, it may be remarked, first, that 
although Griesbach has filled his margin with conjectu- 
ral and other readings, he attributes no considerable 
weight to any of them ; for all the Manuscripts of the 
Epistle to the Romans, which have been collated, con- 
tain the text as it stands ; as do all the ancient Versions, 
and nearly all the Fathers. 

In rendering no xovta Capxa, in respect to his human 
nature, I feel supported by corresponding passages, in 
Rom. i. 3 — Acts ii. 30. And that 6 qv em navtov Ssog 
svhoyyjtog eig tovg aiavag^ is literally translated, who is 
supreme God, blessed forever, may be shown in various 
ways. c 0 ov is here put as is common (see John i. 18 — iii. 
13 — 2 Cor. ii. 31) for 6g sort, who is. The ground of this 
lies simply in the nature of Greek usage. Whenever 6 
is used for 6$, the participle av is used with 6, instead of 
the Verb which og takes. Thus 6 av ; but og eon, in- 
variably. 

Em navtQV Qeog is literally, " over-all God," i. e. su- 



75 



preme God. Compare now with the phrase here, the 
word navta (all) as used in Col. i. 17 — Eph. i. 19 — 23 — 
John iii. 31 — 1 Cor. xv. 27, and in respect to Christ. 
Most clearly it points him out as the head, or ruler of 
the universe. What then can em navtov 0eo$ mean, 
but supreme God ? 

But on no text has greater pains been bestowed, to 
devise an unusual construction and meaning for it. Sch- 
lichting proposed to transpose o and read wo; i. e* 
of whom (the Jewish Fathers) is God, blessed forever. 
But as in this very Epistle, the apostle has laboured to 
prove that God belongs as well to the Gentiles as the 
Jews, (ch. iii. 29,) this expidient would seem to impeach 
the apostle's consistency as well as violate the text. Nor 
would the Greek itself, as emended by Schlichting's 
conjecture, be in any measure accordant with the idiom 
of that language. If 0eog has the article, (and his trans- 
position makes it o 0£og,) then evhoyyitog must of neces- 
sity have it too ; inasmuch as an adjective following a 
noun with an article, and agreeing with it, of necessity 
takes the article. 

Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read o 6>v, o 
via Ttavtov 0fo$, is not any more fortunate. Such in- 
stances as o av e, all relating to the same subject are 
contrary to the usage of the Greek language. Besides i 
this conjecture, like that of Schlichting, not only violates 
the integrity of the text, but gives to 0£O$ the article, 
and omits it before evhoyvjtog : which cannot at all be 
admitted. 

Enough of amending the Apostle's words, without 
the authority of a single Manuscript or Version. Criti- 
cal acumen has also employed itself in dividing and trans-; 
lating the verse in question, in a manner different from 



76 



that in the common Version. The late Professor Justi, 
at Marpurg, a man of great acuteness and fine taste, un- 
dertook the defense of the ingenious supposition, that the 
latter part of the verse is a doxology. He renders it, 
M Whose ancestors were those [renowned] Fathers, from 
whom the Messiah, as to his mortal body was derived, 
who is exalted over all [the Fathers.] God be blessed 
forever!" Thus with the help of supplying an idea, 
which the text cannot well be said to have implied ; and 
by doing violence to the custom of language, in the doxo- 
logical part ; he has devised a method in which we may 
avoid the assertion, that Christ is God over all, or su- 
preme God. But who does not perceive the violence 
and inappositeness of the divulsion which he makes, of 
the former from the latter part of the verse ? Besides ; 
how would a doxology lit the passage in question? Crel- 
!ius, (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 230, 237) long ago was can- 
did enough to own, that when the apostle was affected 
with the greatest sadness, on account of the unbelief of 
his Jewish brethren and the loss of their privileges, a 
doxology was not very congruous. A prayer, (as in ch. 
*x. 1,) would seem? as he thinks, to be much more appro- 
priate. 

Omitting however, all this; it maybe added, that 
Greek usage by no possibility admits of the doxological 
version of Justi. Ssog ev^oyyjrog means, God who is bles- 
sed ; i.e. the proposition in such a case is assumed, not as- 
serted. But Evhoyyjtog o <dsog means, God be blessed; 
let God be blessed, or praised. In accordance with this 
Greek usage, we find five instances of doxology in the 
New Testament, and about forty in the Old, in which 
BvTLoyyjtog is uniformly placed fihst. The same is the 
case with novtayovtog, (cursed,) when an imprecation is 
altered. 



77 



Add to all this ; that the text must be changed to 
make out a doxology ; and we must read 6 @eo$, instead 
of ©eog ; for universally usage prescribes TLvhoyyitog 6 
Ssog. (The instance Ps. lxvii. 19. Sept. brought by 
Stoltz in his Erleuterungen, &c, to support Justi's ren- 
dering, depends merely on wrong punctuation, and the 
repetition of a word which does not correspond to the 
Hebrew text.) If a doxology to the Father were in- 
tended here, it is scarcely possible to suppose, moreo- 
ver, that a particle of transition, (Sf for instance,) should 
not have been inserted, in order to give notice of so 
great a change. In any other case we should expect to 
find it thus, 6 Ss ov ; or if the doxology begin at @£Q$, 
then ev^oy^tog 6 Seog. No text ; no Manuscript ; no 
ancient Version gives us a trace of either of these 
readings. To make them therefore, and force them up- 
on the text ; or to substitute a conjecture, which origin- 
ated from theological speculation against the plain and in- 
controvertible evidence of the integrity of the text; what 
is it, but to introduce a principle fundamentally subver- 
sive of all interpretation and criticism, and give up the 
Scriptures to be moulded to every man's own wishes? 

All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be quite 
incompetent to explain away the common rendering of 
the verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the 
other hand, we may ask ; How comes it that Christ, 
according to his human nature, (to xata Gapxa,) is said to 
have descended from the Fathers? What if I should 
affirm that David, as to his human nature, Avas descended 
from Jesse ? Would you not of course ask, what other 
nature had he, except human ? And this question, forced 
upon us by the expression in question, the apostle has 
immediately Answered ; as to his nature not human, he 



78 



was " supreme God, blessed forever, Amen." To have 
produced the human nature, connected with such an ex- 
alted being, the apostle reckons as one of the special 
privileges which the Jews had enjoyed, verses 1 — 5. 

I do not argue that Christ is divine, merely from 
having the appellation Seog. But if o tm navtov Seog 
be not supreme God ; and if the antithesis in this verse 
do not require us to understand a divine nature here ; 
then I must despair of ever finding what is the sentiment 
of any portion of Scripture, by any or all the rules of ex- 
egesis. 

Heb. i. 8, 9. '0 Spovog Gov 6 Seog eig tov aiava rov 
amvog* pafiSog svdwryitog n paSSog trig ftaGihuug Gov. Hy- 
anyjGag hixaioGvvriVy xou efiiGqGag avoptav 9 8ia tovto e%~ 
qige Ge o Seog, o Seog Gov f e%cuov ayaX^iaGeog napa tovg 
fietoxovg Gov. " But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 
O God, is forever and ever ; a sceptre of righteousness 
is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved right- 
eousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy 
God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
thy fellows." 

This passage is quoted from Ps. xlv. 6, 7. It has been 
objected, that 6 <deog here should not be translated as 
the Vocative, but Nominative ; e. g. " God is thy throne, 
forever and ever; or thine everlasting throne, or sup- 
port." 

To this it may be replied ; 6 Qeog is a common Voca- 
tive, (of an Attic form,) of the JVew Testament and the 
Septuagint. No objection to the common rendering of 
this verse, can be made from the form of the word, 
which is altogether a common one in Hellenistic Greek. 
The Attics write a) &eog. (Vide Sept. passim in Psalmis.) 

To the translation, " God is thy throne," there are 
several objections. 



79 



1. Greek usage does not permit such a version. The 
subject and predicate cannot both have the article, 
(as here,) unless in the case of a convertible, or recipro- 
cal sentence ; which surely will not be urged, in this 
case. " God is thy throne" would stand in Greek, 6 Qeog 
Spovog Gov.* For such a change in the text there is no 
respectable authority. 

2. Such a translation would render insipid the argu- 
ment of the apostle, in this chapter, to prove the pre- 
eminently exalted nature of Christ. To say of this il- 
lustrious personage, " God is thy throne," might excite 
the persons to whom the epistle was addressed to ask, 
" And who is not supported by God ?" How is Christ 
entitled on this account, to claim any preeminence in 
our regard ? 

3. Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the 
word throne, understood either literally or figuratively. 
Literally, it is the seat on which kings sit. This sense is 
out of the question here. Figuratively, it stands for do- 
minion, empire, regal authority; (because it is one of the 
ensigns of such authority.) But there is no such figura- 
tive sense to it, as that of support And what sense 
would it make, to say, God is thy dominion, thy regal au- 
thority*? If you reply; this may mean, "God is the 
cause of thy dominion, or regal authority, (as it often has 
been said ;) then I ask again, of what king's dominion 
and authority is not God the cause ? Is it not the uni- 
versal doctrine of the Bible, that " by him kings reign, 
and princes decree justice ?" And how then is Christ 
entitled to any preeminence, because God is the cause 
of his dominion ? Or how much advance does the apos- 
tle make in his argument, by such an assertion ? 

* See the latter clause of the verse ; where \ is the sub- 

ject, but V M* 9 the predicate, according 1 to the laws of the language. 



30 



4. There is another objection still, to the translation 
in question. This is drawn from the nature of Hebrew 
parallelism in poetry. The verse in question is plainly 
one, in which the subject is the same in both parts ; i. e. 
it is a synonymous parallelism. Now the second mem- 
ber of this is, " The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre 
of righteousness in other words, thy dominion is right- 
tons. The first member of the parallelism, consequent- 
ly, is to be explained in the same way, and plainly means, 
Thy dominion (throne) is everlasting. What could be a 
more tasteless, not to say unmeaning proposition here, 
than this ; " God is thy throne," i. e. support, or cause of 
dominion ? 

The proposed mode of rendering then, violates 
Greek usage ; frustrates the argument of the apostle ; 
does violence to the meaning of &povog 9 and the nature 
of parallelism in the Hebrew original, from which the 
passage was taken. 

I am fully aware of the objections which have been 
made to understanding the word God, in the passage 
now under consideration, in its highest sense. For 1st. 
It is said, that the person called God (Elohim,) here, 
calls another being his God, and therefore cannot be 
Supreme. 

To the fact, I readily assent ; but the conclusion drawn 
from it, I must be permitted to doubt. If Christ be des- 
cribed in the xlv. Psalm, (and the author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews asserts this to be the fact;) he is described as 
mediator; as incarnate ; as triumphing in this character 
and capacity over his enemies. Considered as Mediator, 
with the greatest propriety he might call Jehovah his 
God : for in the capacity of mediator simply, he is to be 
considered as incarnate : and of course subordinate. Is 



83 



it a matter of wonder still, that the same person could 
be called God,, and everlasting dominion ascribed to him, 
who the next moment calls Jehovah his God*? It is a 
wonder of the same nature as that which so much per- 
plexed the Jews, when Christ asked them how David 
could call the Messiah Lord, while at the same time he 
was his Son. It is a wonder, which no ground but that 
which Trinitarians take can ever explain — viz., that the 
divine and human natures coexisted in Christ ; and that 
in the same sentence, he could with propriety speak of 
himself as human and divine. The sacred writers ap- 
pear not to take the least pains to separate the two na- 
tures, in any thing which they say of either. They every 
where speak of Christ, (so it appears evident to me,) as 
either human or divine, or both. They do not appear to 
apprehend or fear any danger of mistake in regard to 
the subject ; no more than we, when we say Abraham 
is dead, or Abraham is living, think it necessary to add, 
as to his body, in one case ; or, as to his soul, in the other. 

This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expres- 
sion, saving every thing that would imply improper want 
of care,) is a powerful argument with me^ I must con- 
fess, to induce me to believe, that they regarded the 
human and divine natures as so intimately connected in 
Christ, that it was unnecessary and inexpedient to attempt 
a distinctive separation of them, on every occasion which 
brought to view the person or actions of Christ. 

It has been objected, 2dly ; that the xlv. Psalm, 
from which our text was taken, does not belong to the 
Messiah, but to David or Solomon. But how is this 
proved ? " The language," it is said, " is such as to 
show, that it is a mere epithalamium, on the marriage of 
one of these kings with a foreign princess." I have no 
11 



82 



time to enter into a discussion of this topic here ; but I 
am satisfied that the difficulties which press upon such a 
view of the xlv. Psalm, are overwhelming. Whatever 
may be said moreover to prove this, unless it be palpa- 
ble demonstration, cannot weigh very much in the minds 
of those who regard the authority of the writer, who 
composed the Epistle to the Hebrews. He has told us 
that the passage in question is addressed to the Son. 

Here then, if our view be correct, is one instance 
more, in which Christ is called God, with adjuncts that 
cannot well permit us to doubt, that the supreme God 
is meant. 

I rank the texts which I have already produced, as 
the leading ones, to establish the divine nature of Christ 
But there are others which must not be neglected. Will 
you permit me then, to advert briefly to a few other 
texts, which though not so entirely above exception as 
those that have been examined, still ought not to be 
omitted, in such an examination of Scripture evidence 
as the present. 

1 John, v. 20. Kcu oiha^ev^ on 6 vlog tov Seoi; fixsi, 
nai hehanev ri[iiv hiavoiav, Iva <yivQGxo[iEV tov oOwfiwov* 
xcu EG(iev ev a%YiQivc>) ev taf vl<p avrov Iyigov Xpi<rrp. 
Ghtog EGtiv 6 a%y$ivog §eo$ xai n £o>7 ouaviog. " And we 
know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an 
understanding, that we may know him that is true ; and 
we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. 
This is the true God and eternal life." 

There are two reasons here why o aXvidivog Sfo$, 
the true God, may be referred to Christ. 1. The gram- 
matical construction favours it. Christ is the most im- 
mediate antecedent. I grant that pronouns sometimes 
relate to a more remote antecedent ; but cases of this 



83 



nature stand on the ground of necessity, not of common 
grammatical usage. \Vhat doubt can there be, that 
John could without scruple call the Logos, whom he had 
before asserted to be God, and to have created all things, 
by the appellation of 6 a^divog ©£0$ ? 

But 2dly. My principal reason for referring 6 dhvfii- 
vog (deog, (the true God) to Christ is, the other adjunct 
which stands with it ; This is the true God — and the 
eternal lipe. How familiar this language is with John 
as applied to Christ may easily be seen. " In him, (i. e. 
Christ) was life, this life was the light of men — giving 
lute to the world — the bread of life — my words are 
spirit and life — I am the way, the truth, and the life — ■ 
the Logos of life. This life (Christ) was manifested 
and we hare seen it, and do testify to you, and declare, 
the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was 
manifested to us." 1 John, i. 1, 2. Now as I cannot find 
any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation 
of life, and eternal life is bestowed upon the Father, to 
designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life ; 
and this occurs so frequently in John as applied to 
Christ ; the laws of exegesis compel me here, to accord 
in my exposition with the common laws of grammar, and 
to construe, (as they cannot be separated,) both o ahy 
Sivog Qeog, and n aiQviog> (or as some Manuscripts 
consonantly with Greek idiom read, n %qvi n aiQVLog^) both 
of Christ. If the true God then be not really divine, can 
any God be found who is ? 

John xx. 28. AnexoSvi Sofiag xat suiiev av*Q* f 0 xv- 
pcog pov xai 6 Qeog pov. " And Thomas answered and 
said unto him, my Lord, and my God." 

My reasons for adducing this text are; 1. There 
is no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of sur- 



84 



prise or astonishment. No formula of this nature, by 
which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise or 
astonishment* has yet been produced ; and there is no 
evidence that such a formula belongs to their language. 
Besides ; the evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed 
himself to Jesus ; sifter awe* ; not merely exclaimed. 
Chiefly however, the commendation which the Saviour 
immediately bestows upon Thomas, serves to defend the 
meaning which I attach to the verse. Christ commends 
him for having seen and believed. The evidence that he 
believed was contained in the expression under examin- 
ation ; for before this expression, he is represented as 
doubtful. On the supposition then, that the expression 
was a mere exclamation, what evidence was it to the 
mind of Jesus, or of any others, that he admitted his claim 
to be the Saviour of men, and to the character which 
was connected with this office ? What more proof of 
real belief can be found in such an exclamation, (if it be 
one 5 ) than we can find, every day, that men are Chris- 
tians, who repeat the name of Jesus by way of exclama- 
tion, when surprized or delighted ? But if we admit 
that the words of Thomas were the proper evidence and 
expression of his belief, for which the Saviour commend- 
ed him ; then we must admit that he will commend us 
for believing that he is both Kvpiog xat, 0£o$, Lord and 
God : unless we adopt the notable expedient of Schlich- 
ting, who avers that Lord is to be referred to Christ, and 
God to the Father ; which latter he thinks Thomas 
spoke, after some interval of time had elapsed ! 

I pass over several passages, where our common text 
applies the name of God to Christ ; e. g. Acts xx. 28, 
and 1 Tim. iii. 16. In regard to this latter text howev- 
er, I would simply remark, that it appears to me a plain 



85 



case, that the authorities which Griesbach himself has 
adduced would fairly lead to a decision different from 
his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading 0eog. 
I will not attempt to weigh them here ; as 1 feel no de* 
sire to press witnesses of a character at all dubious into 
my service. I admit the great desert of Griesbach in 
his critical edition of the New Testament. I believe he 
was a man who would not willingly, or consciously mis- 
represent either facts or arguments, for or against any 
reading. But the work which he undertook was too 
great for the accomplishment of one person, or even of 
one whole generation of critics. Dr. Lawrence, in his 
Essay upon the classification of Manuscripts by Gries- 
bach, has more than rendered it probable, that Gries- 
bach's account of facts is not unfrequently very erroneous, 
(not through design, but human infirmity ;) and that the 
principles, by which he estimated the value of Manu- 
scripts and of course the genuineness of particular read- 
ings, are fundamentally erroneous. And since I am on 
this subject, I may take the liberty to state, (what seems 
to be so little known among us,) that Griesbach is not 
the only recent editor of a critical Testament, to which 
the great body of critics attach importance. The cele- 
brated Matthai, whom Middleton calls the best Greek 
scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament, published 
at Riga, (between A. D, 1782—1788,) a critical Testa- 
ment, of 12 vols., which approaches much nearer to the 
Textus Receptus, than the Edition of Griesbach, with 
whom he is often at variance. Eichhorn. after mtkm a 
high character of this Edition of Matthiii, and noticing 
that the editor differs very much, in his maxims that re- 
spect the formation of the New Testament text, from 
Griesbach and others, says, that < 6 for a long time he 



86 



had followed the middle path between the two par- 
ties." (Bibliothek. Band ii. St. 2. s. 311.) 

The whole system of classifying Manuscripts, which 
lies at the very foundation of all Griesbach's decisions in 
regard to the text, is rejected by Matthai as worthless ; 
and Dr. Lawrence has, in the Essay above mentioned, 
made an attack upon the same classification, which ren- 
ders questionable the principles of it ; at leat the .appli- 
cation of those principles as made by Griesbach. 

Professor Knapp of Halle, has also published a 
Greek Testament, the text of which is independent of 
Griesbach's, although it approximates to his. This edi- 
tion is esteemed, for its punctuation, the order of words, 
its accentuation, and spirituation ; and has great cur- 
rency. 

I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be use- 
ful to those, who are in the habit of attributing so much 
weight to Griesbach's decisions, to know that they are 
far from being uncontroverted by many of the best crit- 
ics among his own countrymen. I know of no Commen- 
tator of note, who has made Griesbach's text his basis, 
except Paulus, who reexamines all his decisions. 

To return however to our subject ; we do not want, 
and feel no disposition to use either of the texts referred 
to above as proof texts, in the great question before us. 

There is another class of texts, which I have not hi- 
therto mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning 
is commonly thought to be less capable of demonstration, 
than that of some others which I have produced. I re- 
fer to such texts, as Ephes. v. 5. Ev tffl (3<x<fifaia Hov Xpttf- 
tov xat Seovy " the kingdom of Christ and God." Titus 
ii. 13. Upo<J$exo[i6VOL *yiv paxapiqv ehniha xai emfyoiveiav 
ryjg So^yjg *ov (isyahov Shod xai Garyipog fi^Qv IvjGov 



SI 

Xptfttov " Looking for the blessed hope and appearance 
of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ." 2 Tim. iv.l. 
Aia[iaprvpon<u evomov rov Sfov, xai Iyigov XpiGtov tov 
fiE^ovtog xpiveiv Zovrag xai vexpovg, xai ryjv snifyavsiav 
avrov xai hyiv fiaciTieiav avroV " I adjure you before 
the God, and Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the 
quick and the dead at his appearance and kingdom." 2 
Pet. i. 1. * . . . *ov Seov yfiov xai (Tempos IyiOov Xpi<T<roi>* 
" by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus 
Christ." 

The mode of translating these texts here proposed, is 
altogether in conformity to the Greek idiom. Middleton 
(on the Article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For 
although proper names and abstract nouns, in such a con- 
nexion as ©eog and Xpttf<ro$ here, may take the article 
before the first noun, and omit it before the second, and 
yet designate different things and persons ; yet words, 
which are attributives ', if they omit the article in such a 
case, exhibit evidence that they are to be connected with 
a preceding noun, and are predicates of it* and not sig- 
nificant of separate beings. E. g. in the first case, Eph. 
v. 5 ; " the kingdom of Christ and God," according to 
this rule would mean, " of Christ who is God." In the 
second instance, Tit. ii. 13, the meaning is, "of the great 
God, who is our Saviour, &c." 

Mr. Wordsworth, a few years since, instituted a most 
laborious investigation of the Greek Fathers, to see whe- 
ther the idiom in regard to the article here was admit- 
ted in their writings ; and whether they ever understood 
more than one person to be designated by such expres- 
sions. The result I will give in his own words. (P. 132.) 
" I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thou- 
sand instances of the form, 6 Xptfftfos xai Qsog, (Eph. v. 



88 



5;) some hundreds of instances of o [isyag Sedg xai cfGrtyjo, 
(Tit. ii. 13); and not fewer than several thousands, of the 
form o §eog xau tfcor^p, (2 Pet. i. 1); while in no single 
case, have I seen, where the sense could be determined, 
any one of them used, but only of one person" 

i After all ; if there were no other evidence of the Di- 
vinity of Christ in the New Testament, than what depend- 
ed solely on these texts, one might be led probably to 
hesitate concerning the subject. But when the method 
of translating here proposed, is perfectly conformable to 
the Greek idiom, (not to say demanded by it,) and con- 
formable to other texts of the New Testament, in re- 
gard to sentiment ; I confess the evidence which they 
afford, if not decisive, at least tends, in no small degree, 
to confirm the decision of those other texts. Specially 
is this the case in regard to the text in Titus : for where 
is the appearing of God the Father ever spoken of by 
the New Testament writers ? It is Christ who appears ; 
who will appear at the judgment ; who appeared to ex- 
ecute vengeance upon the Jewish nation. Yet here, the 
appearance of the great God is mentioned - K of the great 
God and Saviour ; for so I cannot but believe, the text is 
fairly to be construed. Can this great God be any other 
than Christ himself ? 

Thus much for the texts, which bestow upon Christ 
the appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what 
sense the word God must be understood, according to 
the common rules of interpreting language. I must now 

II. Examine another class, which attribute to Christ 
equality with God, or that power, and dignity or honor, 
which belong to God. 

Phil. ii. 5 — 8. Tovro yap fypovEiodo ev vyav o xcu ev 
Xpttftfo I^tfou, eg ev ^op<J>>? Seov vnap%QV, ov% apnaypov 



89 



hyviGaHo to eivai Ida Sep, cc/M' iavtov exevade, fiop^v 
SovXov %a6av> ev ofioLoiiatL avdpcdTtov <yevo[ievog 9 xai 0%vi~ 
pan evpedscg 6g avdpanog* etaneivQGev iavtov^ yevofievog 
vrtYixoog {iexp° Saratov, Saratov Se otavpov. "Let the 
same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus ; who 
being in the condition of God, did not regard his equality 
with God as an object of solicitous desire, but humbled 
himself, (took upon himself an inferior or humble station) 
assuming the condition of a servant, being made after the 
similitude of men, and found in fashion as a man, he ex- 
hibited his humility by obedience even to the death of 
the cross." 

Such is the rendering, which after laborious examina- 
tion, I am persuaded the Greek of this passage not only 
admits, but demands. I will state my reasons, for dis- 
senting from the common method, in which either Trin- 
itarians or Unitarians have translated it. 

Our common Version says, " Who being in the form 
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 
but humbled himself, &c." This Version seems to ren- 
der nugatory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the Apos- 
tle's reasoning in the passage. He is enforcing the prin- 
ciple of Christian humility upon the Philippians. In order 
to urge this in the most effectual manner, he proposes to 
them the example of Christ ; " Let the same mind be in 
you which was in Christ." What was this ? It was 
manifested by the fact, that though essentially divine, 
(ev floozy Ssov,) he did not eagerly retain that condition, 
i. e. his equality with God, but assumed the station or 
condition of a servant, (^op<f»?y oovhov). Here the rele- 
vancy of his reasoning is sufficiently plain. But how was 
it any proof or example of humility, that he did not think 
it robbery to be equal ivith God ? 

12 



90 



Besides ; the Greek will not fairly bear this construc- 
tion. e AQ7tovy[io$ 9 translated robbery, does not seem here 
to signify an act of robbery, but res rapta, or rather, figu- 
ratively res avida diripienda et vindicanda; i. e. some- 
thing which is eagerly to be seized and appropriated, 
(See Schleusner and Storr, in locum.) Moreover aonot/y- 
(iog, which our translators have placed next to the verb 
yjyyiGato, does not by the rules of Syntax belong there. 
The Greek Syntax would place the words thus, as to 
their sense ; ovx vjyyjtiato to eivai Ida Sfp [xa^a] apnay- 
pov ; literally, " he regarded not the being equal to God 
[as] dpnay[iov, as a thing to be greedily sought or appro- 
priated. 

For these reasons, I cannot believe that our common 
Version gives the sense of the passage. And for similar 
reasons, I feel compelled to reject the Version, so com- 
mon among some Unitarians ; " He did not think of the 
robbery of being equal with God." A conclusive objec- 
tion to it is, that it translates b\pnay\LQV here as desig- 
nating the action of robbery ; and that ovx yjyriGato to 
eivai iaa apnayfiov can never be proved to mean, 
" He thought not of the robbery of being equal with 
God." The verb yjy^aato is not susceptible of such a 
meaning, as is expressed by the Version thought not of; 

e. did not aspire to, imagine, form expectations of, &c. 
in its primary sense it signifies to lead ; to be pre-eminent y 
&c.; in its secondary sense to esteem, judge, regard, re- 
pute, &c. To render ovx yiyyicato ap7tay[iov, he did not 
think of the robbery, would therefore be a violation of 
the first principles of Greek idiom, and of the meaning 
of words. To justify such a version, the passage must 
run thus, ovx yiyyjaaro TON apnayiiov TOT eivai iaa 0eo). # 
And as no ancient Manuscript or Version has given a hint 
* Even then nynearo could not be rendered, thought not of. 



91 



of such a reading, it seems to be placed beyond fair debate, 
that the translation now in question cannot be admitted. 

Both our translators and Unitarians appear, general- 
ly, to have mistaken the import of the word floppy in 
this passage. On the one hand, (lopfyvj does not seem to 
me at all parallel with the anavyaaiia and ftapaxtvjps 
which are applied to the Son, in Heb. i. 3. These rep- 
resent the glory of the incarnate Messiah, who had ap- 
peared " in these last days," and spoken to men. They 
express the same view of Christ which John gives, (i.14.) 
when he says, " We beheld his (Christ's) glory, verily 
the glory of the only begotten of the Father and this 
glory was seen after the 4 Word became flesh and dwelt 
among us.' Comparison then of (lopfyvj ®sov with these 
passages does not at all ascertain its meaning ; for to 
Christ belonged the {iop$Yi Oeov before he humbled him- 
self and took upon him the form of a servant. In thus 
occupying indeed the condition of a servant, (if I may so 
express the Greek skevqGs Csavtov^) consisted his humil- 
iation. 

A fair examination of f*op<J»7, either generally or in 
special relation to the passage before us, will end, as I 
must believe, in the conviction that the word is not un- 
frequently synonymous with tyvGi$ (nature) and ovtiia 
(being.) The proofs which Schleusner has offered of 
this are sufficient ; (Lex. in voc. pop^y.) But the proof 
of what it means in the passage before us, is too plain to 
be easily mistaken. If you say, (loptpyi Qsov means a 
similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities, 
(as we speak of Christians resembling God ;) then I ask, 
Did he lay aside this moral resemblance, when he be- 
came incarnate ? For being in [lopfyy Oeov — exevoas ere- 
avtov ; being in the pop^y of God, he depressed himselfi 



92 



i. e. he submitted to assume a low condition. But in 
what sense were his moral qualities depressed ? 

Does [lopfyyj Oeov mean resemblance to God, in re- 
spect to office ; as magistrates are called gods ? Then 
what office did he lay aside, in order to become incar- 
nate ? If Christ be only a created being ; who were his 
subjects, and what was his dominion, before his media- 
torial kingdom commenced by the event of his incarna- 
tion ? 

But this is not all. If fiopcpvi mean only similitude ; 
then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ 
is said to have taken upon him the {loptyyiv SovTlov ? That 
he bore merely a resemblance to a servant, (i. e. to one who 
obeys, or is in a humble station ;) or that he did actually 
take the condition of one who was in a humble and de- 
pressed state, and persevere in it to the very death of 
the cross ? The latter must be admitted, unless we re- 
hearken to the doctrine of the Docetee, who taught, that 
Christ was a man in appearance only, and not in reality. 
If yLOQtyvi Sovhov then, means the condition or state of 
one who is humbled or depressed, and subjected to the 
command of others ; pop^y} Oeov must mean the condi- 
tion or state of one who is truly divine. 

After all ; it should be sacredly remembered, that on 
such a subject as this, human language, (all made up of 
terms to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings 
about finite and mutable objects,) is of course incompe- 
tent fully to designate the mode of union between the 
divine and human nature. I must regard the language 
here and in all other passages, on this awful subject, as 
only approximation toward describing what exists in the 
Divinity, or is done by him. He who was in the condi- 
tion of God, and equal with God, sxsvqGe aeavtov ; i. e. 



93 



as we translate it, exinanivit seipsum, "made himself of no 
reputation" Yet how incompetent must these translations 
be ? So far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot 
change ; i. e. he cannot divest himself of his essential per- 
fections. He cannot cease to be omnipotent, omnipres- 
ent, omniscient, &c. But he may veil the brightness of 
his glories for a time, by assuming to himself a union 
with the human nature, and making this the organ 
through which he displays his perfections, for the time 
of the incarnation. Does the sun cease to shine — are his 
beams extinguished, when an intervening cloud obscures? 
for a while, his lustre ? Or is the sun in any measure 
changed ? 

We may ask then, (in reply to a multitude of ques- 
tions, with which you and others press Trinitarians on 
this subject ;) Because God is omnipotent does it follow, 
that the whole of that omnipotence must be every mo- 
ment exerted ? If not, (and who will refuse assent to 
this,) then why may he not have veiled his glories for a 
time in the incarnate Saviour, and still retain all his es- 
sential perfections, unchanged ? He may ; I believe the 
text in question decides that he did. 

I approach such a subject however, with solemn awe; 
and never feel my own weakness and ignorance more in- 
tensely, than while endeavoring to think upon it. The 
familiar, I had almost said irreverential manner, in which 
some speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculat- 
ed, I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On 
the one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode 
of representation, that the greatest portion of Christ's 
humiliation consisted in his having renounced and abso- 
lutely laid aside his divinity, for the time of the incarna- 
tion ; and that as God, in this diminished condition, he 
did actually expire upon the cross. All the powers ol 



94 



language are exhausted, in order to show how great must 
be the sufferings and condescension of Christ, in under- 
going such a degradation as this. — On the other hand; 
some who revolt from these mistaken representations, 
verge to the other extreme. Lest they should degrade the 
divine nature of Christ, they are so careful to separate 
the human nature from it, that one is compelled to sup- 
pose, that the man Jesus had simply a higher degree of 
inspiration and communion with God than other proph- 
ets. The New Testament justifies neither of these ex- 
tremes. 

A thousand questions may be raised here ; a thou- 
sand difficulties suggested, which no sober man will un- 
dertake to answer. The history of past ages exhibits 
an appalling picture of (disputes about the person of 
Christ ; all springing from the denial of facts revealed in 
the New Testament, or the unhallowed curiosity of 
men, who desired to know what God has not revealed. 
The very last age witnessed a dispute in Germany be- 
tween the theologians of Giessen and Tubingen, whether 
the xevcdGig, (humiliation) of Christ consisted " in absti- 
nence from both the direct and reflex use of divine ma- 
jesty :" or in the " occultation of divine majesty a dis- 
pute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very 
centre. 

The humble inquirer after truth, who once is brought 
clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will 
shrink from disputations of such a nature ; and pour forth 
his earnest supplications to God, that the simple verities 
which the Scriptures reveal, may be believed on the au- 
thority of God ; while the manner in which the facts ex- 
ist, that are revealed for our credence, is left with him 
" whose ways are unsearchable and whose judgment? 
are past finding out." 



95 



I have used the freedom of letter-writing, in this dis- 
cussion ; I can hardly call it digression, as it is so nearly 
connected with the explanation of the text which I am 
examining. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the 
version, which would correspond best with my appre- 
hension of the real meaning of the passage in question, 
is, " Who being of divine nature, or condition, did not 
eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on 
himself a humble condition," &c. In this way, and in this 
only, is the passage consistent with, at least appropriate 
to, the apostle's argument and design; and in this way 
only can the Greek be fairly and grammatically render- 
ed. 

With the passage that has now been considered* 
seem to me to agree, as to general import, such texts as 
these : John v. 19. " Whatsoever things he (the Father) 
doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise;" i. e. he has 
the same power as the Father. And when it is said in 
the context, " The Son doeth nothing by (or of ano, a$') 
himself, except he see the Father do it ;" I understand 
the meaning to be, that the Jews had no reason to be- 
lieve that Christ had any disposition to blaspheme God, 
(of which they had so frequently accused him,) for that 
he acted in entire concert with the divine purposes and 
commands, and had no separate interests of his own. 

John v. 21—23. " For as the Father raiseth the dead 
and restores them to life, so also the Son restores to life 
whom he pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, but 
hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men 
might honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." 

Here I find an equality of power and honour ascribed 
to the Father and Son. The Son is indeed introduced as 
Mediator; as head overall things to the church: but could 



96 



he be such a head ; could all "judgment be committed 
to him," if at the same time he was not also divine, and 
consequently omniscient ? It is perfectly plain, that in 
so far as the " committing of judgment to the Son" is 
concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person ; to one 
who in respect to office is subordinate to God. But in 
so far as the qualifications requisite to perform the duties, 
which that commitment requires, are concerned, the Sa- 
viour is divine ; and the honor to be claimed by him is 
the same with that which the Divinity himself claims. 
It matters not whether you interpret this of the obe- 
dience to be rendered to the Son, or the homage to be 
paid him. Multitudes of prophets have acted as the 
messengers of God, and have borne his messages of mer- 
cy and of judgment to his people; but to whom among 
them all did he grant the privilege of being honored as 
himself? Or to what created being shall the glory of 
the blessed God be rendered, without infringing upon 
the fundamental principles of either the Jewish or Chris- 
tian religion ? 

In fact, I cannot well conceive how our Saviour could 
have used these words, without having exposed himself 
to renewed accusations of the Jews for blaspheming, un- 
less he were really divine. The Jews had just accused 
him of violating the Sabbath, because he had healed on 
that day, the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda. 
The reply of Christ to them was ; " My Father worketh 
hitherto, and I work :" which, if I understand the argu- 
ment, must mean, ' My Father has never ceased to work 
on the Sabbath,' in carrying on all the operations of the 
natural and moral world ; he supersedes the law of the 
Sabbath. I have the same right. " The Son of man is 
Lord of the Sabbath." The Jews then sought to slay 



97 



him, not only because, as they affirmed, 66 he had violat- 
ed the Sabbath, but said that God was his Father ; mak- 
ing himself equal with God." In reply to their bitter ac- 
cusations, Jesus made use of the language above cited; 
telling them that he did whatever the Father did, and 
was entitled to the same honour. Was this relinquishing 
his claim to the equality with God, which the Jews had 
charged him with assuming ? Or was it speaking out 
plainly, that he wrought on the Sabbath by the same 
right that the Father did, and was entitled to the same 
deference ? Can his words, interpreted without regard 
to any preconceived theory, be made to signify less than 
this ? 

You will expect me, perhaps, to adduce John x. 30. 
" 1 and my Father are one." — It is a clear case, that the 
Jews understood Christ here, as claiming equality with 
God, or rather claiming to be God. (See verse 33.) But 
I am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often 
expounded his words, is a sure guide for our interpreta- 
tion at the present time. The malignant disposition 
which they frequently displayed, may well lead us to 
suspect, that they would, if possible, put such a construc- 
tion on his words, as would subject him to the imputation 
of blasphemy, or rebellion against the Roman govern- 
ment. I would expound the words of Christ therefore, 
independently of any construction which his embittered 
enemies put upon them. And in the present case, it 
seems to me, that the meaning of " I and my Father are 
one," is simply, " I and my Father are united in counsel, 
design, and power." 

So in John xvii. 20, 21 ; Christ prays that "all who 
shall believe on him may be one. As thou, Father," con- 
tinues he, " art in me, and 1 in thee ; so they also may be 
13 



98 



one in us ;" i. e. that the disciples may have the " same 
mind which was in Christ Jesus may copy after his ex- 
ample, and be united in the temper of their souls to him, 
as he is to God; may be one with the Father and with him. 

So also, in Gal. iii. 28 ; Christians of different ranks 
and nations are said to be one in Christ ; and 1 Cor. iii. 8, 
he that planteth and he that watereth are one ; i. e. they 
have the same affections, and designs ; they are united 
to accomplish the same object. In the same manner 
Cicero says, " Unus fiat e pluribus," when persons , are 
united in temper and pursuits. (De Offic. /. i. c. 17.) 

From the consideration of those texts, which ascribe 
equality with God; or divine power and honours to 
Christ, in a general sense ; let us now turn, 

III. To the examination of those which assert or im- 
ply particular divine attributes, or works, to him. 

1. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ 

Matt. xi. 27. " All things are delivered unto me of 
my Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Fa- 
ther ; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the 
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." 

If the same knowledge of the most recondite and 
difficult subjects ; in a word, the same omniscience, be not 
ascribed in this passage to the Son as to the Father ; I 
am unable to make out what the meaning of it is. And 
in the latter clause of the verse, men are declared to be 
dependent entirely on the Son, for that knowledge of the 
Father which is revealed ; i. e. he only is capable of 
making this revelation. " No man hath seen God at any 
time ; the only begotten who dwelleth in the bosom of 
the Father, he hath revealed him" John i. 18. 

John vi. 46. 0v% oti tov narepa ng iopaxev, el (iyj 6 
qv napa ?ov $>e ov ovvog iopaKe tov natepa. " Because tha* 



99 



no man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, 
he hath seen the Father." The word ecdpaxe here, does 
not mean to see with bodily eyes, but with the mental eye, 
i. e. to know. What but omniscience could be adequate 
to the knowledge, which is here predicated by Christ of 
himself? 

In the same manner, the knowledge of the most inti- 
mate secrets of the human heart is ascribed to Christ. 
John ii. 24, 25. " But Jesus did not commit himself unto 
them because he knew all men ; and needed not that 
any should testify of man : for he knew what was in 
man." John vi. 64. " But there are some of you that be- 
lieve not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they 
were that believed not, and who should betray him." 
Acts i. 24. " And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, 
which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of 
these two thou hast chosen." That Lord (Kvpiog) here 
means Christ, seems to me very plain from verses 21 
and 22, (compare verse 6) of the context. Besides, this 
is the common appellation of the Saviour in the Acts of 
the Apostles. The appeal too, in this case, is made re- 
specting the choice of an apostle. " Shew, Lord," say the 
apostles, " which of these two thou hast chosen, that he 
may take part of this ministry and apostleship." Is there, 
(separately from party feelings,) any room to doubt 
here, that the Apostles did appeal to the same Lord 
who had chosen them, to designate who should fill the 
vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas ? 

1 Cor. iv. 4, 5. M For I know nothing by myself; yet 
am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the 
Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until 
the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden 
things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels 



100 



of the hearts : and then shall every man have praise oi 
God." That Lord (Kvpiog) here means Christ, is plain 
both from the office of Judging ascribed to him, and from 
his coming to judgment. Without citing the numerous 
other passages, which confessedly represent Christ as 
the final Judge of all the human race ; permit me here 
to ask, Is it possible for any being who is not omnis- 
cient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures ? Can 
he, for thousands of years, (possibly of ages,) be present 
every where, and know what is transacted ; can he pen- 
etrate the recesses of the human heart ; can he remem- 
ber the whole character and actions of countless myriads 
so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances and situation ; 
and yet be finite ? be neither omnipresent nor omniscient ? 
God claims it as his distinguishing and peculiar preroga- 
tive, that he knows the secrets of the human heart, (Jer. 
xvii. 10 ;) what then must he be, who knows the secrets 
of all hearts, at all times, and in all worlds ? If he be 
not God, the proof that the Father is God, is defective 
too ; and we have the question again to dispute with 
the Manicheans, whether Jehovah be not a limited and 
imperfect being. 

" But," you will say, 44 Christ acts as Judge by dele- 
gated authority ; why not then by knowledge imparted 
to him ?" He does indeed act as judge, by delegated 
authority ; because it is in his mediatorial capacity that 
he acts as Judge : but to act as Judge is one thing, to be 
qualified for such an office is another. Exaltation as 
Mediator constitutes him judge in that capacity ; omnis- 
cience, and omniscience only can qualify him for the duties 
of that station. And can omniscience be imparted ? We 
may as well say omnipotence, or self-existence can be im- 
parted, as omniscience. There is, and there can be but 



101 



one God ; and a second omniscient being — omniscient 
simply by knowledge imparted, would force us into all 
the absurdities of polytheism. 

Rev. ii. 23. " And ail the churches shall know that 
I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts : and I 
will give unto every one of you according to your works." 
The same person speaks here, who " was dead and k 
alive;" (Chap. i. 18;) i. e. Christ. The sense of the 
passage is too plain to need any comment. 

To conclude this head : when I compare such pas- 
sages as those above cited, with the description of om- 
niscience as belonging to God ; how can I doubt that the 
New Testament writers mean to ascribe the knowledge 
of all things to Christ ? To say that whatsoever per- 
tains to God or man, is known by any being, is to affirm 
of that being, that he is omniscient Compare now with 
this, the appropriate knowledge which God ascribes to 
himself only, in Jer. xvii. 9, 10 ; " The heart is de- 
ceitful above all things, and desperately wicked ; who 
can know it ? I the Lord search the heart, I try the 
reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and 
according to the fruit of his doings." 

2. Divine poiver is ascribed to Christ. 

Phil. iii. 21. "Who shall change our vile body, that 
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, accord- 
ing to the working whereby he is able even to subdue 
all things unto himself." 

Compare now with this passage, 1 Cor, xv. 26 — 28, 
where the same language is applied to God the Father. 
And if to be able " to subdue all things to himself," 
(vJiotaZaL <ta rtavra savva),) be not characteristic of om- 
nipotence in Phil. iii. 21, when applied to Christ, why 
should it be when applied to the Father in Corinthians ? 



102 



Heb. i. 3. '0g (ov a7toLvya<J[ia trig SoZqg xai ^apaxr>?p 
ryjg vitodtadeag avtov, fyepav re ta navta <t<n pyjiian trig 
Swa^teog avtov,) Si 9 iavrov xa6apLO[iov 7toi^aa[ievog rav 
afiaprudv npav, exadiaev ev he^ta nvig (lYjyahoavvYig ev 
v^Yi^oLg' " Who, being the brightness of his glory, and 
the express image of his person, and upholding all things 
by the word of his power, when he had by himself purg- 
ed our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty 
on high." The word fyEpav, which is translated upholding, 
means preserving, directing, governing. Thus Chrysos- 
tom ; <J>£p6)i>, says he, xvSepvcdv, hiamntovta avyxpatav. 
So the corresponding Hebrew word Is,xlvi.3. lxiii.9. 

In John x. 16, Christ says, " he has power to lay 
down his life, and to resume it again." In other places, 
the resurrection of Jesus is ascribed to God ; Acts ii. 24, 
32.— iii. 15.— v. 30.— 1 Cor. vi. 14,— xv. 15. 

In 2 Pet. i. 3, (Seta 8vva[ii$,) divine power is ascrib- 
ed to Christ ; compare verse 16. 

Most decisive however, of divine Power belonging 
to Christ, are those passages above, which ascribe to 
him the creation of the universe. This is the distin- 
guishing characteristic of Jehovah. Jer. x. 10 — 16. 
" But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, 
and an everlasting King : at his wrath the earth shall 
tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his 
indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods 
that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they 
shall perish from the earth, and from under these heav- 
ens. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath 
established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched 
out the heavens by his discretion. When he uttereth 
his voice there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, 
and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of 



103 



the earth ; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth 
forth the wind out of his treasures. Every man is brut- 
ish in his knowledge ; every founder is confounded by 
the graven image : for his molten image is falsehood, 
and there is no breath in them. They are vanity, and 
the work of errors : in the time of their visitation they 
shall perish. The portion of Jacob is not like them: 
for he is the former of all things ; and Israel is the rod 
of his inheritance : The Lord of hosts, is his name." 

Acts xiv. 15. " Sirs, why do ye these things ? we al- 
so are men of like passions with you, and preach unto 
you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the liv- 
ing God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, 
and all things that are therein." 

Whatever views any one may entertain, who reads, 
and compares such passages with the creative power 
ascribed to Christ ; I cannot but admit, with the apostle, 
" that he who built all things is God." 

3. Eternity is ascribed to Ghrist. 

That those passages of Scripture, which speak of 
Christ's existence before the creation of, the world, do 
not explicitly assert his eternity, I have already suggest- 
ed. But then, it is difficult to conceive that they do not 
imply eternity. " For," says Doederlein, (Inst. Theol. i. 
p. 390,) " to exist before the beginning of the world, 
what can it mean but to exist from eternity ?" Passages 
of this nature are the following ; viz., John i. 1. " In the 
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
and the Word was God." 1 John i. 2. " For the Life 
was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, 
and show unto you that eternal Life which was with the 
Father, and was manifested unto us." John xvii. 5. "And 
now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with 



104 



the glory which I had with thee before the world was." 
John xvii. 24. " Father, I will that they also whom thou 
hast given me be with me where I am ; that they may 
behold my glory, which thou hast given me : for thou 
lovedst me before the foundation of the world." 

But most specially do I feel, that Rev. xxii. 13 is de- 
cisive on this subject. Eyo to A xai to £1, 6 npcdtogxai 
6 ectxatog, h xou to te%o<;. That it is Christ who 
speaks here, is clear ; for 1. In the preceding verse he . 
says, " Behold I come quickly." 2. In the sixteenth 
verse, the same person says, " I Jesus, have sent mine 
angel," &c. Now the same description is given of the 
eternity of God, in Chap. xxi. 6, 6 ; compare verses 7th 
and 3d. To know still more fully, what this formula of 
expression means, we must recur to the old Testament, 
where we have it, divested of its technical shape. In Is. 
xliv. 6, Jehovah says, " I am the first, and I am the last ; 
and besides me there is no god;" i.e. eternity distin- 
guishes me from all that are falsely called gods. So in 
Isaiah xlviii. 12, after declaring that he will not suffer 
his name to bo polluted, nor give his glory to another, 
he adds, " I am he, (i. e. the true God,) I am the first ; 
and I also am the last." 

Now if the same assertion be made of Christ, (as it 
plainly is,) how can we avoid the conclusion that the 
holy apostle meant to assert his eternal existence ? 

4. Divine honours and worship are paid to Christ. 

John v. 23. " That all men might honour the Son 
even as they honour the Father." On this text I have 
before remarked, (page 95,) in another connexion. 

Heb. i. 6. " Let all the angels of God worship him." 

The word ivorship, it is said, has two significations ; 
viz. obeisance and spiritual homage. This is no doubt 



105 



true ; and the first of these meanings often presents it- 
self in the Old Testament, and (as I am willing to con- 
cede,) in the Gospels. Many who worshipped Christ, 
(that is, prostrated themselves before him, while he so- 
journed among men,) probably knew or acknowledged 
nothing of his divine nature. But what shall we say of 
the angels ? Are they ignorant of his true nature ? And 
at all events, is not the worship, which they who are 
pure spirits can pay, of course of a spiritual nature, and 
not simple obeisance ? 

Phil. ii. 10, 1 1. " That at the name of Jesus every 
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
and things under the earth; and that every tongue should 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father." 

Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a 
common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament 
writers for the universe ; (to nav, or ta navta.) What 
can be meant, by things in heaven bowing the knee to 
Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant ? What other 
worship can heaven render? And if their worship of 
Christ be spiritual, is not that of others, who are united 
with them, to be spiritual also ? And when it is added, 
44 to the glory of God the Father I understand the 
sentiment to be, that Jesus in his mediatorial character 
is the object of universal adoration ; but as this charac- 
ter has a peculiar connexion with and relation to God 
the Father, so the worship paid to Christ the Mediator, 
should redound to the Father as well as himself, and the 
Father should be glorified by it, 

Rom. x. 9 — 14. " That if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart 
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
34 



106 



saved. For with the heart man believeth unto right- 
eousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth 
on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference 
between the Jew and the Greek ; for the same Lord 
over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whoso- 
ever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be sav- 
ed. How then shall they call on him in whom they have 
not believed ? and how shall they believe in him of whom 
they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without 
a preacher?" 

The name of the Lord, on whom they are to call, is 
plainly Christ ; for it is the same in whom they are to be- 
lieve, (verses 11 and 14.) And this Lord, (Christ) on 
whom they are to call, and in whom they are to believe, 
is Kvpiog navUdVi universal Lord, and therefore able to 
bestow the blessings which they need. 

Rev. v. 8 — 14. "And when he (i.e. Christ, see v. 6, 7,) 
took the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders 
fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them 
harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the pray- 
ers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art 
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: 
for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy 
blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and 
nation ; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests : 
and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I 
heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, 
and the beasts, and the elders : and the number of them 
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of 
thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the 
Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and 
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and bless- 



107 



ing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, 
and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and 
honour, aad glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth 
upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. 
And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twen- 
ty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for 
ever and ever." 

If this be not spiritual worship — and if Christ be not 
the object of it here as God; I must confess myself una- 
ble to produce any case, where worship can be called 
spiritual and divine. 

The apostles and primitive martyrs worshipped 
Christ ; and they recognize the practice of worshipping 
him among other Christians. 

Acts vii. 59, 60. " And they stoned Stephen, making 
invocation (€7Uxahov[ievov) and saying, Lord Jesus, re- 
ceive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with 
a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And 
when he had said this he fell asleep. " 

Now here is a dying martyr, who is expressly said to 
" be filled with the Holy Ghost," and to enjoy the vision 
of the heavenly world, and of the Saviour who was there; 
in his last decisive moments, too, on the very verge of 
eternity ; here is such a martyr, committing his depart- 
ing spirit into the hands of the Lord Jesus, in the very 
same language, and with the same confidence that Jesus 
committed his spirit into the hands of the Father, when 
expiring upon the cross. This expiring disciple also, im- 
plores forgiveness for his murderers. Of whom does he 
implore it ? Of the same Lord Jesus. Can the trust of 
a departing spirit, and the forgiveness of sin be commit- 
ted to any being who has not omnipotence, and supreme 



108 



authority ? And can a dying martyr, with his eyes fixed 
on the very visions of God, and his soul filled with the 
Holy Ghost, ask and pray amiss ? 

2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. 'Trtsp tovtov tpig tov xvpiov napexa- 
faGa, Iva anoGty art* e^iov' xai eipvixe (ioi' Apxei ooi f\ 
X a p^ [iov n yap Swapig fiov sv aafcveiq vefaiovvcu. H- 
htfStaL ovv fiahhov xavffiOoiiai ev naig aadeveicug [lov, iva 
emaxyjvaa^ en 9 £(ie n Svvafitg <tov Xpicrov. " For this 
thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart 
from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for 
thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness. 
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in mine infir- 
mities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." 

The Lord whom Paul besought here is plainly Christ ; 
for this same Lord, in answer to the apostle's supplica- 
tion, says, " My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my 
strength (n 8ova[iig (iov) is perfected in weakness." Then 
the apostle immediately subjoins ; " Most gladly then 
would I rejoice in my infirmities, that the strength of 
Christ (v\ Sovapig Xpttftfoi;*) may rest upon me." A 
clearer case that Christ was the object of the apostle's 
repeated prayer, cannot well be presented. 

1 Thess. iii. 11, 12. " Now, God himself, and our Fa- 
ther, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto 
you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound 
in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as 
we do toward you." 

Can any distinction be here made, between the sup- 
plication addressed to God and to Christ ? 

2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. " Now our Lord Jesus Christ 
himself, and God even our Father, which hath loved us, 
and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope 
through grace, Comfort your hearts and stablish you ir\ 
every good word and work," 



109 



Here the order of the persons to whom supplication 
is made, is the reverse of that in the last instance quot- 
ed; which shows that nothing depends on the order, but 
that it was a matter of indifference with the apostle, 
which was placed first, the supplication being equally 
addressed to the Father and to Christ. 

" Rom. i. 7. " To all that be in Rome, beloved of 
God ; called to be saints ; Grace to you, and peace, from 
God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." 

Here the same blessings are solicited and expected 
from Christ and the Father. See the same formula re- 
peated 1 Cor. i. 3.-2 Cor. i. 2. 

Acts i. 24. " And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, 
which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of 
these two thou hast chosen." 

That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evi- 
dent from verses 21 and 22. It is the usual appellation, 
moreover, which the book of Acts gives to the Saviour. 
(See above p. 99). 

2 Tim. iv. 14. "The Lord reward him according to 
his works !" Again verses 17 and 18 ; "Notwithstanding 
the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me ; that by 
me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the 
Gentiles might hear : and I was delivered out of the 
mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from 
every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly 
kingdom : to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." 
(Compare iii. 11.) Usage hardly admits a doubt here, 
that Lord means Christ. 

Nor can I separate from religious invocation, trust, 
and confidence, such expressions as these; (Acts iii. 1.) 
" Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none ; but 
such as I have give I thee : In the name of Jesus Christ 



110 



of Nazareth, rise up and walk." Nor can I see how the 
solemn adjuration, ev #p«rT6), (by Christ) which the apos- 
tle uses, Rom. ix. 1 — 1 Tim. ii. 7, can be separated from 
religious invocation, or appeal. 

We must add to all these instances of worship, the 
fact that Christians were so habituated to address their 
supplications to Christ, that " They who invoke Christ," 
became, it would seem, a kind of proper name, by which 
they were in primitive times designated. 

Thus Paul (1 Cor. i. 2.) addresses himself to all 
snixahovfisvoig To ovo[ia Hov xvpiov vj[i(dv Ivjdov Xp«7<rou, 
ev rtavti tono, who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, in every place. That the verb enixaXea is an 
appropriate one to designate the act of prayer, will not 
be questioned. The literal translation of it is to invoke. 
The simple meaning of the passage is "I address myself 
to all Christians ;" but instead of using this name directly, 
the apostle uses a periphrasis, and sajs, to all the invokers 
of Christ, i. e. those who pray to him, meaning the same 
as ayioig, xXvjtOLg, &c. in the context. He has signified 
too, that the practice of invoking Christ, was not confin- 
ed to Corinth, but was extended to every place ; ev navti 
tony. 

Exactly in the same manner does Ananias describe 
Christians, when the Lord Jesus bade him go to instruct 
and comfort Saul. " Lord," said he, " I have heard of 
many concerning this man, what things he has done, 
Qtoi$ ayioig Gov,) to thy saints at Jerusalem ; and even 
now, he has' a commission from the high priest, to bind 
all (tovg E7tMa%ov{i£Vovg to ovo[ia Cov,) those who invoke 
thy name," i. e. Christians. See the same thing repeat- 
ed, verse 21st. 

The very heathen, in the primitive age of Christian- 



Ill 



ity, little as they knew about Christians, discovered that 
they made Christ an object of worship. Says Pliny in 
writing to Trajan, " Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, soliti- 
essent, (i. e. Christiani,) dicere secum invicem. (Lib. 10. 
Epis. 97.) " They, (Christians) sing in social worship a 
hymn to Christ as a God." 

Eusebius too, (Ecc. Hist. v. 28,) appeals against the 
Artemonites to the ancient songs of Christians, thus ; 
" Whatever psalms and hymns were composed by faith- 
ful brethren, from the beginning, praise Christ the Word 
of God." Can any example of a church in the apostolic 
age, who did not practise thus, be found ? 

Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general pre- 
cept and encouragement, to make him the object of pray- 
er? " If ye shall ask any thing in my name," said he to 
the apostles, " I will accomplish it," (eya Ttoi^Cto.) John 
xiv. 13, 14, They appear to me to have understood 
this, as directing that he should be regarded as the spe- 
cial object of prayer. Hence, instead of finding few or 
no examples of prayer to Christ, in the history of the 
primitive Christians in the New Testament, I find more 
of this kind, than of any other. 

When I have contemplated the precepts which en- 
courage prayer to Christ, and the worship of him, both 
by the inhabitants of the heavenly world, and by the 
Churches on earth ; I then compare these things with 
the exclusive worship and trust, which Jehovah claims to 
himself." Is. xlv. 22, 23. " Look unto me, and be ye 
saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there 
is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone 
out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, 
That unto me every knee shall bow. every tongue shall 
swear." Is. xlii. 8. " I am the Lord ; that is my name ; 



112 



and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise 
to graven images." Jer. xvii. 5 — 7. " Thus saith the 
Lord, cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and mak- 
eth flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the 
Lord : For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and 
shall not see when good cometh ; but shall inhabit parch- 
ed places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhab- 
ited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and 
w 7 hose hope the Lord is." Matth. iv. 10. " Then saith 
Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan ; for it is written, 
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
shalt thou serve." 

I am ready now to ask, whether I can avoid coming 
to the conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine, 
in as much as he is so often represented as the object 
of worship ; or that the sacred writers have mistaken 
this great point, and led us to that which must be con- 
sidered as idolatry. And yet the worship of Christ is 
placed, as it would seem, in contradistinction to that of 
idols, 1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6. That Christianity renounces ut- 
terly and forever all idolatry— all polytheism— in a word, 
every thing inconsistent with the worship of one only 
living and true God, is a point so plain and so universally 
conceded, that I shall not dwell for a moment upon it. 

Thus have I endeavoured to show, that the New 
Testament bestows upon Christ the appellation of God, 
accompanied by such adjuncts as naturally, (not to say 
necessarily,) lead us to understand this word, in its high- 
est sense ; that it attributes to him equality with God ; 
that it represents him as the Creator, Preserver, and 
Governor of the universe ; declares his omniscience, his 
omnipotence, and his eternity ; and both by precepts and 
examples exhibits Christ as the object of prayer and dr 



113 



vine worship, by the Church in heaven and on earth. 
To these conclusions do the plain rules of exegesis nec- 
essarily conduct me. I am sensible of the allegations, 
which are frequently made, that we receive our systems 
of belief from the Creeds and Confessions of faith, which 
have descended from former unenlightened and super- 
stitious, or philosophizing ages. That some of our phra- 
seology has been derived from men, who sometimes spec- 
ulated too boldly, and substituted names for ideas ; I am 
ready to concede. I feel the embarrassments, that on 
account of this are occasionally thrown in the way of 
inculcating truth, at the present time. Men are very 
apt to suppose, that if you throw away the old terms, or 
names, you reject the old ideas also. Yet it can be only 
superficial thinkers, that will soberly believe this. It is 
in general therefore, a sufficient reason with me for dis- 
missing phraseology, when it must, almost of necessity, 
be misunderstood by the great body of men. Yet, a sud- 
den and entire revolution, in this respect, would be very 
undesirable ; because such a revolution must again lead, 
of necessity, at first, to other misapprehensions. I am 
willing therefore, to retain many terms, which have be- 
come venerable for their antiquity, that I should reject 
without hesitation, if they were now presented de novo. 

Excepting the influence which Creeds and Confes- 
sions exercise over my phraseology, (and that in a modi- 
fied manner as stated above,) I am not conscious of being 
led to the adoption of Trinitarian views, or to the as- 
cription of true and proper Divinity to Christ, by any 
Creed, or any human authority on earth. My sole busi- 
ness for these ten years past, has been the study of the 
Bible ; and the study of it, in the daily use of those prin- 
ciples of exegesis, which you have for the most part, so 
15 



114 



briefly and so happily described. I began this study 
with a desire to know what the Bible has taught. I 
have pursued it with the same desire, or rather with such 
a desire greatly increased; with unabated ardour. I have 
limited my studies to no class of writers ; but have soli- 
citously endeavoured to seek for truth, and to receive it 
thankfully, from whatever quarter it might come. In 
particular ; at least three quarters of my time have been 
spent among writers of the Unitarian class, from whom I 
have received with gratitude much instruction relative to 
the philology, the exegesis, and the literary history of the 
Scriptures. I have long been in the habit of rejecting 
any explanation of the Scriptures, that is not founded 
upon the principles of exegesis which you have develop- 
ed. Whether unorthodox or heterodox use could be made 
of this or that interpretation, is what I endeavour habit- 
ually to lay out of view, when I interpret the Scriptures. 
The simple question which I desire to place before me 
is ; " What has God said ? What has Christ taught ?" 
Guided by the fundamental principles of explanation in 
all languages, I inquire for this ; and when I am satisfied 
as to what the Bible has declared, I regard it as the de- 
cision of heaven and true orthodoxy. 

I do not, indeed, regard the opinions of great and 
good men, in past ages, as unworthy of attention, or even 
reverence. If I read them with a proper temper of 
mind, there are few of them but can be read with pro- 
fit. The reasonings of Athanasius and Augustine I can 
read with great pleasure ; so I can those of Calvin and 
Edwards. But I adopt no opinion because they adopted 
it. The reasons of their opinion are the pbject of my in- 
vestigation ; it is of but little interest to me, to know 
simply that they believed this or that doctrine. And 



115 



with the very same object, I read the opponents of these 
great men. I can say with truth, that much more of my 
reading life has been spent among the opponents of my 
sentiments, than among the friends of them. Can you 
make the same affirmation ? 

After all ; it is a principle by which, if I have any 
knowledge of my own heart, I desire forever to be guid- 
ed, to " call no man master, on earth." I would place 
the decisions of Scripture, fairly made out, immeasurably 
above all human opinions. The difference seems to me 
to be that which exists between the decisions of an un- 
erring God, and those of fallible men. 

It is with such views and principles of reasoning, that 
I have come to the conclusions which have been devel- 
oped in these letters. And were it not that I fear to be- 
come tedious, by detailing my reasons for believing in 
the divine nature of Christ, I should add a great num- 
ber of texts, which require us with all the heart to love 
him ; to obey him ; to confide in him ; and to commit our- 
selves to him ; in such manner as I can never persuade 
myself to do, with respect to any being who is not God. 
The New Testament represents my consolation, my priv- 
ilege, and my happiness to be derived from trusting in 
Christ. But can I confide in a finite being, when I have 
an infinite, almighty, all-sufficient GOD, to whom I may 
go ? Will you make me contented with a mite, when I 
can have the mines of Peru at my disposal ? 

I should also add those texts, and some very striking, 
(not to say in my view unanswerable) ones, where, in the 
New Testament, the very same things are applied to 
Christ, which in the Old Testament are affirmed of Je- 
hovah. I will merely put down a few references of this 
nature, which it wiU be easy to compare. 



116 



Is. vi. 5 — 10, compared with John xii. 37 — 41. 
Mai. iii. 1, Mark i. 2. 

Ps. lxxviii. 56, 1 Cor. x. 9. 

And now, in concluding this letter, permit me to say ; 
That as reason does not and cannot decide against the 
doctrine of the Trinity as explained in my second Letter; 
nor against the union of the divine and human natures in 
Christ ; the question whether these are truths or not, 
rests solely on the decision of revelation. What then is 
that decision ? This question I have already endeavour- 
ed to answer. 

I will now acknowledge, that I was induced to under- 
take the above examination, in consequence of the chal- 
lenge which you make, (p. 9,) in the following words ; 
" We challenge our opponents, to adduce one passage in 

the New Testament, where the word God unless 

turned from its usual sense by the connexion, does not 
mean the Father." I have accepted this challenge, not 
I hope in the spirit of contest, but with the desire of 
contributing, so far as lies in my power, to develope what 
the New Testament does teach. I have laboured to 
show, that the very reason above all other reasons, why 
I believe Christ to be truly divine, is because the connexion, 
when he is called God, ascribes to him such attributes and 
works, as leaves me no room to doubt that the New Testa- 
ment writers meant to assert his proper divinity. 

In p. 14, (after stating your apprehensions in regard 
to the doctrine that Christ has two natures, the belief of 
which, you affirm, is " an enormous tax on human credu- 
lity,") you say, "I am aware, that these remarks will be 
met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God, 
and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in which 
divine properties are sai4 to be ascribed to him." Whe- 



117 



ther the number of texts, in which Christ is called God, 
amounts to no more than two or three, it would be super- 
fluous now to inquire, when they lie before us, and can 
easily be counted. Whether also, the " class of passag- 
es " is " not very numerous, in which divine properties 
are said to be ascribed to him," can be judged of in the 
same way. But, my dear Sir, what is it to the purpose, 
(I ask again,) whether the passages are more or less 
numerous, which relate to the doctrine in question ? It is 
too late for you and I to rest our faith upon the number 
of passages that inculcate a doctrine, after we have con- 
ceded the Bible to be of divine authority. The simple 
question is, what do those passages mean, according to 
the rules of interpretation in all other cases ? This be- 
ing ascertained, only two courses are before us ; the one, 
to receive their meaning as the guide of our faith ; the 
other to reject their authority, and deny our obligation to 
believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the N. Test, 
does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a finite 
creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed inter- 
pretation of it ; I will either receive this doctrine, receive 
it implicitly, (for, if I am not deceived in respect to my- 
self, I only desire to know what God has taught, in or- 
der to believe it ;) or else I will reject all claims to in- 
spiration in the sacred writers, and follow their instruc- 
tions only so far as they coincide with my own specula- 
tions. I am fully satisfied there is no middle path here, 
and that a man who investigates for himself, extensively 
and independently, must eventually follow one or the 
other of the courses pointed out. 

Convince me then, that you apply the rules of inter- 
pretation which you have laid down, in an unbiassed 
manner ; that you have looked on all sides of these great 



118 



questions with an impartial eye, reading the advocates of 
different sentiments ; that you have never admitted a 
sense of injury or the feeling of party to sway you in 
your representations of our sentiments ; and that the 
New Testament does clearly teach, that Jesus is not, and 
cannot be divine, when explained by the plain and indis- 
putable laws of exegesis ; and you will make me a con- 
vert to the doctrines, (at least some of them,) which you 
embrace. Where the apostles lead me, I will go; or 
else renounce all deference to them. I will cherish too, 
a grateful remembrance, while I have a being, of any 
man or men, who shall convince me by sound reasoning, 
that I am in an error and am wandering from the paths 
of life. 

But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless 
affirm of yourself; " I cannot be convinced, until I am 
satisfied that my principles of interpretation are wrong, 
and my application of them erroneous." You have de- 
scribed, (p. 14,) in what manner you avoid the conclu- 
sions drawn from those texts which call Christ God, and 
which apparently ascribe divine attributes to him. On 
the principles of exegesis there disclosed, I shall remark 
in another letter. I will at present say only, that they 
appear to me far from being as certain as those which 
1 have quoted in my first letter. 

Your candor will easily concede, that the positions 
which I have just laid down are correct, and such as be- 
come every sincere lover of truth. I am very ready to 
grant, that we ought not to expect to produce convic- 
tion in the minds of you and your friends, by using re- 
proachful epithets, or severe appellations. We cannot 
convince you, by appealing to our Fathers, or their 
Creeds ; to the ancient Fathers of the Church, or any 



119 

body of men whatever. You may always reply to us 7 
4 Are not men fallible ? And have not the best of unin- 
spired men cherished some errors ? Give us the reasons 
why our Fathers received the doctrines in question, and 
then we will hear you ; the fact that they did receive 
them is a part of Church history, but certainly no theo- 
logical argument. The papal hierarchy is supported by 
the Fathers ; and there never has been a sect in Chris- 
tendom, who could not, sooner or later, make an appeal 
to the Fathers whom they respected.' 

Nor can we convince you by a tenacious and unrea- 
sonable opposition to all critical examination of the texts 
of the N. Testament, or critical investigation and study ; 
or by a forced and mystical explanation of various pas- 
sages, and converting them to the support of sentiments 
which they never were designed to support. The sound 
rules of interpretation will soon sweep away every ves- 
tige of such defective views of the word of God ; and 
orthodoxy must stand or fall, by the simple decision of 
the Scriptures, interpreted according to the general laws 
of language. 

On the other hand ; — you will as cheerfully concede 
too, that we ought not to be convinced by calling us hard 
names ; by misrepresenting our sentiments ; by proving 
that Calvin helped to burn Servetus ; by affirming that 
our sentiments come from Creeds and Confessions of hu- 
man authority, fabricated by superstition and philosophy; 
by representing us as gloomy, superstitious, malignant, 
and unsocial ; by appropriating to Unitarians all that is 
kind and noble and generous and exalted, and leaving to 
us the opposites of these virtues ; by affirming that we 
are desirous of infringing Christian liberty and establish- 
ing an Inquisition to defend our sentiments, and exhorting 



120 



others to resist such tyranny ; or by representing us as 
admitting in words, that God is kind and paternal, while 
we think meanly of him, and treat him as the heathen 
did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel to the fire 
of controversy ; but can the lover of truth, and of the 
word of God be convinced by them ? They are the arts 
indeed of controversialists — and arts like them, I am sor- 
ry to say, are not confined to any one party. Passion has 
more control over disputants than they are aware of. 
Zeal for what they believe to be truth is what they 
think inspires them ; while perhaps their words, or the 
spirit of their representations " breath out threatenings" 
if not " slaughter" to their opponents. I hardly dare 
trust myself to write this paragraph, lest I should catch 
the spirit while I am describing it. I know in some mea- 
sure how frail I am ; but I think I do sincerely disap- 
prove of such a spirit, in whatever party it may be found. 

In consulting writers of different views and senti- 
ments, one is grieved to find that this spirit is limited to 
no party. I have seen it even in many great and good 
men. I feel that there is reason to tremble for myself, 
possessed of feelings naturally ardent, that I may in some 
respect or other transgress in these letters, and hinder 
something of the conviction which they otherwise might 
possibly produce, in the minds of some. 

In one thing, we shall certainly be agreed. The so- 
ber inquirer after truth, must be convinced by reason 
and argument. All else is nothing to him. And where 
these lead him, he will go. The path of truth is the 
path of duty. The approbation of God, for a sincere, 
candid, simple, honest, believing heart, is worth infinitely 
more than all the honor which party zeal can bestow, or 
the world is able to give. 



121 



POSTSCRIPT. 

AFTER finishing the above letter, your " Note for the second Edi- 
tion" came to hand. But as most which it contains had already, as it 
seemed to me, been anticipated ; I did not think it of importance to 
change the shape of the letter, and adapt it to }'our Note as well as 
Sermon. I was still less inclined to this, because I had endeavoured, 
as far as possible to avoid giving any personal shape to the controver- 
sy ; knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject, ail per- 
sonal controversies soon become. I may truly say here, w I seek not 
you, but yours i. e. I have not the most distant design of saying any 
thing which shall wound your personal sensibility ; but I do feel, and 
I ought to feel a deep interest in addressing the understanding and rea- 
son of a man, who by his weight of character, sobriety of mind, and 
eminent talents, has acquired so much influence in Society as 3^011 have. 
And in order to do -this with propriety, I have endeavoured, as far as 
possible, to throw the whole subject into the shape of a discussion re- 
specting principles, and to avoid that form of writing which involves 
personal reflection. 

Will you now permit me, in fhis informal way, to add a few 
things which the perusal of your Note has suggested to me ? 

I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with anoth- 
er in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say ; "We are 
told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same 
Being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal 
him in this character." In the latter you say ; " According to this 
doctrine, (i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity,) there are three infinite 
and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, 
has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They 
love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's 
society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each hav- 
ing his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other, 
The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, 
and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking 
flesh. Here then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of dif- 
ferent consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, per- 
16 



122 



forming different acts, and sustaining different relations ; and if these 
things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are ut- 
terly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed." 

I cannot see how Trinitarians maintain that Jesus Christ is the same 
Being as the Father, when a prominent trait of their doctrine is, that 
there is a distinction between him and the Father ; which you yourself 
represent as amounting to as high a distinction as exists between two 
different men. 

Nor can 1 see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if 

Christ were u the same being as the Father, we should expect 

to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God." For first ; are 
we to take the book of God as it is ; or are we to insist that it must 
be conformed to our expectations ? And secondly ; if Christ was truly 
man, (a point as certain, as that Christ ever existed,) and was conver- 
sant in the human nature with men ; how, in a book which gives us 
the history of what he said and did during his incarnation, should we 
expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God ? The 
reasonableness of such an expectation seems to be at least, very ques- 
tionable. 

In truth, the Sacred writers do not appear to me to write as contro- 
versialists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the way with men, 
who have extravagant views of the importance of any particular sub- 
ject, to be ever dwelling upon it and taking occasion to introduce it as 
often as possible. Thus I have heard some preachers, who will not ut- 
ter a single public discourse, or offer a single prayer without letting it 
be seen of all men, that they are champions for the doctrine of the 
Trinity. I have heard others, who never fail to let their hearers 
know that they are emancipated from the thraldom of the dark ages ; 
have thrown off the shackles of Creeds and Confessions, and forms im- 
posed by ignorant and bigoted men ; that they are rational, enlightened 
and reasonable Christians ; and who exhort their audience to become 
their imitators. The holy apostles however possessed as I must believe, 
none of the spirit which prompts to either of these courses. They did 
not view subjects in a distorted and sectarian light. The edifice of 
truth — the temple of the living God, rose under their hands not only 
into a lofty and magnificent structure, but into one which was as con- 
spicuous for symmetry as for grandeur. 

All parts of Christian doctrine held their proper place in the system 
which they taught. Why should they then be continually speaking of 
Christ as the supreme God, when (as I verily believe,) they expected 



123 



no professed follower of Christ to call this doctrine in question. John 
seems to have had opponents to it in his eye, when he penned the first 
verse of his gospel : but excepting this, I do not remember another pas- 
sage of the New Testament which has the aspect of opposition to gain- 
sayers, in respect to the divinity of Christ. The Apostles doubtless 
expected to be believed, when they had once plainly asserted any thing. 
That they are not, is indeed to be lamented : but it cannot be charged 
to their fault. They felt, (what we feel now,) that very frequent 
and strong asseverations of any thing is apt to produce a suspicion 
in the minds of a hearer or reader, either that the person making 
them has not arguments to rely upon, and so substitutes confident affir- 
mations ; or that he is himself but imperfectly satisfied with the cause 
which he defends; or that he has sinister motives in view. For myself, 
I confess I am inclined to suspect a man of all these, who makes very 
frequent and confident asseverations. 

I am the more satisfied then, that the New Testament treats the 
subject in question, as one which was not controverted ; and as one 
which was not expected to be called in question. My conclusion 
from the apostles' mode of treating it, is, I acknowledge, quite differ- 
ent from that which you draw, as stated in your Sermon and Notes. 
But with my present views, I must think it to be more probable than 
yours. 

In regard to what follows in your Note, most of it has been antici- 
pated. I will touch upon only a few points. 

With respect to the passages which we adduce in proof of Christ's 
divine nature, you observe that the " strength of the Trinitarian argu- 
ment lies in those, in which Jesus is called God." This may be true ; 
but it lies in them, as I have from the first endervoured to show, not 
simply because the name God is given to him ; but because those 
things are ascribed to him as God, which no being but the Supreme 
God can perform. My whole argument is constructed on this ground, 
Your whole Note, on the ground that we draw our conclusion simply 
from the fact, that the appellation God is given to Christ. 

What you say of Matt. i. 23, so far as it respects the argument in 
favour of Christ's divine nature from the name given him, perfectly ac- 
cords with my views. It is a very fallacious argument on which many 
Trinitarians have imprudently rested, when they maintain that the 
name Immanuel proves the doctrine in question. Jerusalem is called 
u Jehovah our righteousness ;" is Jerusalem therefore divine ? 

Why should you say, in the third paragraph of your note, that in 



124 



looking through " Matthew, Mark, & Luke, you meet with no instance 
in which Christ is called God ?" — Are there no proofs here of his om- 
niscience, of his omnipotence, of his authority to forgive sin, of his su- 
preme, legislative right ? And are not these things better proof of his 
divine nature than a mere name can be ? Why moreover, should such 
an invidious distinction be implied to the prejudice of John, and of 
the Epistles ? Do you not admit all the New Testament' to be of di- 
vine origin and authority ? Of what importance then is it whether the 
doctrine of Christ's divinity is found in one part or another ? Besides, 
if any disciple could know who the Lord in reality was, has any one a 
better claim to be considered as knowing it than John, the disciple 
" who leaned on Jesus' bosom ?" 

You have passed the whole of John i. 1, with simply commenting 
on the name. My dear Sir, can you expect to satisfy candid inquirers 
with this ? Are you not bound to tell us how this Logos ( Word) did cre- 
ate the worlds, {ret ttc&vtoi the universe,) before this text is disposed of? 
You must tell us how creative power, (the highest, the distinguishing 
act of Deity, which makes the characteristic and prominent feature of 
the true God in distinction from all other gods, Is. xl. 40, and onward,) 
can be delegated ? When you can explain this, then you will bring us 
upon ground, where we shall be unable to controvert the Gnostics, 
who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Supreme 
God. Inferior power, they maintained, was competent to create the 
world. What else do they, who ascribe creation to Christ and yet 
reject his Divinity ? 

Why should you pass over all that, on which we rely for proof, 
and touch only on that which we do not profess to place confident 
and certain reliance ? I mean, why should you descant on the name 
God, and say nothing of the attributes ascribed to him who bears this 
name ? If we should argue in the same manner with you, ought we 
to expect to convince you ? Much less, could we acquit our conscien- 
ces, of our obligation to represent fairly the gospel of Christ to the 
world, should we publish to them a solemn appeal, in which we 
should endeavour to lead them to believe, that all the argument in 
favour of a particular doctrine held by many Christians, consisted in 
that very thing on which they did not rely ; or at most, which consti- 
tuted but a part merely of their argument. 

The simile from Plato and Socrates, 1 must think, is less happily 
chosen, than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly lead you 
to choose. In the same breath that you say " Plato was in the begin- 



125 



ning with Socrates, and was Socrates;" you add, "that whoever 
saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not Plato, but Socrates, and that 
as long as Plato lived, Socrates lived and taught." That is, your first 
sentence would be understood, of course, in a sense totally different 
from that which you meant to convey, unless you added the commen- 
tary along with the sentence. John has indeed added a commentary; 
but this is, that he means to call Christ the God who created the Universe. 
Of this commentary you have taken no notice. Of this however you 
are bound to take notice, if you mean to convince those who differ 
from you ; or to deal uprightly with those whom you design to in- 
struct. 

On the texts John xx. 28 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; 1 Tim. iii. 
16 ; Heb. i. 6 ; and John v. 20, I have already said what I wish to 
say, at present. The remarks in your Notes, do not seem to call for 
any new investigation. 

You say, (near the close of your Note,) that you have " collected 
all the passages in the New Testament in which Jesus is supposed to 
be called God." The foregoing letter however, does represent us 
as supposing that there are still more in which he is called God ; al- 
though I have omitted many, in which a multitude of Trinitarians 
have supposed that Christ is called God. Why you should affirm this, 
when nearly every book on the doctrine of the Trinity that ever has 
been published by Trinitarians will contradict it, I am unable to ex- 
plain. 

You repeat also the assertion here, " that in two or three passa- 
ges, the title (of God) may be given him, (Christ); but in every case, 
it is given in connexions and under circumstances, which imply that 
it is not to be received in its highest and most literal sense." 

But in no single instance, have you noticed the " connexions 
and circumstances," in which the appellation God is bestowed on 
Christ. Can you reasonably expect your thinking readers, will take 
this assertion upon credit ? Are you not sacredly obligated to prove 
to these same readers, by the Scriptures interpreted according to the uni- 
versal laws of explaining human language, that the New Testament 
writers have not ascribed to Christ creative power, omniscience, om- 
nipotence, omnipresence, divine worship, divine honours, and eternal ex- 
istence ? What are names in this dispute ? Show that these attributes 
are not ascribed to Christ, and you make us Unitarians at once. Do 
not take advantage of representing our arguments as consisting in that 
on which we do not place our reliance ; and then tell your readers. 



126 



'This is all which Trinitarians have to say for themselves.' Dispute 
can never be terminated in this way. Meet fairly and openly the 
points in debate. Many of your readers are too intelligent to be sat- 
isfied with any other course. Any other does not become your high 
character and exalted talents. 



LETTER IV. 

Reverend and Dear Sir, 

In my last Letter, I endeavored to offer reasons why 
I believe that Christ is truly divine. You will very nat- 
urally expect me to take some notice of those texts, on 
which you would specially rely, to prove his inferiority 
to the Father. This I must do ; but in as summary a 
manner as possible. Not because it would not be easy 
to say much; even more easy than to write briefly, and 
yet with perspicuity ; but because there would be dan- 
ger of protracting the subject, and tiring the patience of 
both writer and reader. 

Let me begin then, by stating certain things which 
are intimately connected with the subject in question. 
While I believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe 
that he is as truly human ; that he was a real man, and 
lived, acted, suffered and died as a man. He resem- 
bled however man in his primitive state, i. e. Adam, as 
he came out of the hands of his Maker. He was pure 
and sinless. But he possessed all the feelings and all 
the innocent infirmities of human nature. I know no 
proposition that can possibly be proved from the New 
Testament, if this cannot ; nor do I know of a more ab- 
surd heresy than that of the Docetae, who averred that 
Christ was a man in appearance merely, and not in re- 
ality. 



127 



I had actually added to this last sentence the 
following one, " In this, I know, you are perfectly ac- 
cordant with me ;" but hesitating for a moment wheth- 
er it was correct, I instituted a reexamination of your 
Sermon to see if this were the case. I can scarcely ex- 
press my surprise, when after a diligent search, I was 
not able to find an intimation that Christ was truly and 
properly a man. All that you maintain is, that he was 
a being: distinct from the Father and inferior to him. I 
must retract therefore my sentence against the Docetoe, 
lest I should seem to have treated your opinion with se- 
verity. But the state of my mind in regard to the 
weight of evidence, I cannot retract. If the evidence 
be not overwhelming, that Christ was perfectly man ; I 
cannot conceive it possible, that any point in theology or 
morals is capable of being established. 

The Gnostics maintained that from the supreme Di- 
vinity proceeded certain Eons, who were a kind of dii 
minores ; and one of which (Christ) created the world. 
This Eon descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and for- 
sook him at his crucifixion. In what important respect 
he differs from this, who holds to a superangelic soul, and 
a human body, (as it must be presumed you do,) I con- 
fess I cannot see. The Socinian seems to me incompar- 
ably more rational, and more tenable, than any shade of 
the Arian hypothesis. If the evidence be not complete, 
that Christ was really a man, from his birth, actions, suf- 
ferings, death, and affirmations respecting himself; then 
I cannot see how it is to be proved that Christ ever ex- 
isted at all. And will you refuse your assent to the pro- 
position, that Christ participated in the divine nature, 
because you cannot see how such a union of different na- 
tures could take place : and yet believe in a human body 



128 



united to a soul not human ? To what order or class of 
beings, then, does this new compound, and strangely mix- 
ed person belong ? He is not divine ; he is not human, 
(for a human soul is surely essential to human nature;) 
he is not angelic ; for angels have no corporeal forms. 
Are we to be freed from mystery by such a theory ? I 
cannot adopt it, until I find it in the Scripture. But 
there I find that the Logos, who existed before the 
world was made, was God ; and was the Creator of the 
universe. I cannot admit him to be a superangelic be- 
ing simply, until I am convinced that my views of such 
passages as ascribe divinity to him, are incorrect. 

As to the theory which maintains that Christ was 
God's own proper Son, before the creation of the world, 
(of course before his incarnation ;) and God's own Son in 
the same sense in which Solomon was the son of David : 
It is natural to ask first, Who then was his Mother? 
And secondly; How much do the Divinities of the Chris- 
tian system, differ from Jupiter and his progeny among 
the Greeks and Romans ? 

After all, I cannot but hope that I have not under- 
stood you correctly, and have not sufficient grounds to 
believe that you embrace any species of Arianism ; least 
of all that you deny the proper humanity of Christ. For 
if this be not a fact ; I must forever abandon the hope 
of acquiring the meaning, which the writers of the New 
Testament design to convey, in any case whatever. 

To return to my purpose. The proper humanity of 
Christ being considered as an established fact ; I have 
one general observation to make on the principles of ex- 
egesis, which are connected with it. 

It is this ; that in so far as Christ is human, every 
thing said of him in this capacity, must necessarily be 



129 



spoken of him as inferior to the Father. In a word ; as 
his human nature is inferior to the divine, so whatever 
has relation to it, or is predicated of it, must of course be 
that which implies inferiority to the divine. 

We do then, (if you will allow me to use your own 
expressive words, though applied by you in a connexion 
somewhat different,) " we do maintain, that the human 
properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth suffer- 
ings and death, — -his praying to God, his ascribing to God 
all his power and offices ; the acknowledged properties 
of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret" them of human 
nature ; and to draw the conclusion^ that whatever could 
be predicated of a real man> pious and sinless, might be 
predicated of him. How would he — how could he — have 
assumed our nature, (except as the Docetag affirmed he 
did, viz. in appearance only,) unless every thing could be 
predicated of him, which could be predicated of a man ? 
Accordingly, we know that he increased in wisdom, stat- 
ure, and favour with God and man ; that he ate, drank, 
slept, laboured ; was fatigued, hungry, thirsty ; rejoiced 
and sympathized with his brethren, wept, was in an ag- 
ony — prayed, bled, died, was buried, and rose again. If 
these things do not forever exclude all hope of making 
any shade of the Arian theory probable, I must confess 
that I am yet entirely in the dark, as to the nature of 
evidence, and what the New Testament does contain. 

Do you ask me, how you shall distinguish, when a 
text speaks of Christ as human or as divine ? I answer ; 
just as when you speak of a man, you discern whether 
what is said relates to his body or his soul. When I say, 
Abraham is dead ; I mean, obviously, his mortal part 
When I say, Abraham is alive ; I mean, obviously, his 
immortal part. When the Evangelist says, that Jesus 
17 



130 



increased in stature, and wisdom, and in favour with 
God and man ; that he ate, drank, slept, prayed, suffer- 
ed, died and rose again; he obviously means, his human 
nature did this. When he affirms, that the Logos is God 
and made the Universe ; and the apostle says, that he is 
" supreme God, blessed forever," 1 cannot help thinking 
it to be equally obvious that they mean his divine nature. 
The simple answer to your question then, is, that we must 
distinguish which nature is described, by what is affirm- 
ed concerning it. Ex praedicatis subjectum discernitur. 

I must make one remark more, in this place. It is, 
that the appellation Father is not always applied to de- 
signate that distinction in the Godhead, which we com- 
monly describe by calling it the first person ; but that 
it is sometimes a general title of the Divine Nature. (See 
Matt. i. 6. — Deut. xxxii. 6. — Isaiah lxiii. 16. — lxiv. 8. — 

Matt. v. 16, 48. vi. 4. vii. 11. John viii. 41.—) 

In the same manner Kvpiog, (Lord) is applied often to 
Christ in particular ; and to God as a general appel- 
lation. The Divinity is called Father, on account of his 
peculiar and provident care, which he extends to all the 
creatures of his power. He is called Lord, (Ki>po$j) be- 
cause of his universal dominion. 

Christ then in his mediatorial capacity, or as to his hu- 
man nature, by his obedience merited and obtained 
high reward. This reward I take to be the exaltation 
which God bestows upon him (Phil. ii. 9 — 11.) In this 
capacity, all power is given him in heaven, and in earth ; 
i.e. he is constituted "head over all things to his Church." 
(Matt, xxviiii. 18.) In this capacity; "All enemies are 
put under his feet ;" ( 1. Cor. xv. 25 — 27.) And this me- 
diatorial dominon, when the work of a mediator is com- 
pleted, will be resigned, at the final judgment. ( 1. Cor» 
xv. 28.) 



131 



Of the same tenor are many passages. When God 
is said to be the head of Christ, (1 Cor. xi. 3 ;) I un- 
derstand it of that nature, of which this can be predi- 
cated. When Christ is called the image of the invisible 
God, the brightness of the Father's glory and the express 
image (%apaxtv!p) of his person, (i. e. of him ;) or the 
only begotten of the Father, the Son of God ; God's own 
Son; God's beloved Son; his dear Son, &c. ; I understand 
all these as descriptions of his mediatorial nature, and 
station. I know indeed, that many of these texts have 
been appropriated by some Trinitarians, to prove the 
divine nature of Christ ; in my apprehension however, 
injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this 
class may found, Mat. xvii. 5. — John i. 14.- — x. 36. — xiv. 
10.— Hi. 35.— Col. i. 13.— Heb. i. 5— Rom. viii. 29, 32. 

In Heb. v. 7 — 10, is a passage which has occasioned 
much speculation, but which seems to me evidently spok- 
en of the human nature, in the mediatorial capacity. 

It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in re- 
gard to John xiv. 28 ; 64 my Father is greater (fiet^Qv) 
than I." On examination however, it appears not to be the 
object of Jesus to compare his own nature with that of 
the Father ; but his condition. "If ye loved me," said he 
to his weeping disciples, " Ye would rejoice that I said, 
I go unto the Father ; for the Father is greater than I ;" 
i. e. ye would rejoice that 1 am to leave this state of suf- 
fering and humiliation, and resume that "glory which I 
had with the Father, before the world was." You ought 
to rejoice at my exaltation to the bliss and glory of the 
Father. So Svu (great) in Hebrew, is used for a state 
of prosperity, a happy state. Gen. xxvi. 13, 

Mark. xiii. 32 offers serious difficulties. "Of that day 
and that hour knoweth no man ; no, not the angels, which 



132 

are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." The 
day and hour are. according to some, the day of judgment ; 
but, as I apprehend, (from comparing the context,) the 
day of vengeance upon the Jews is meant. To solve 
the difficulty presented, some have objected to the read- 
ing, ovSe 6 viog, (neither the Son ;) but for this objec- 
tion there are no adequate authorities. Others, with 
Hilary (de Trinitate ix.) say, that not to know, is not to 
publish or declare. " Ea nescit, quae aut in tempore non 
sunt confitenda aut non agnoscuntur ad meritum." There 
is no doubt that the verb yivaGxa sometimes has the 
sense of making known ; but a derivative of the verb 
is used here, which does not bear such a sense ; nor 
will the tenor of the verse admit it. Does the Father 
make known the day and hour ? For if neither the Son 
nor the angels make it known, the implication would be 
that the Father did make it known. After all, what 
more real difficulty presents itself in this case, than in 
that where Jesus is said to have increased in wisdom ? 
Luke ii. 52. If he did possess a nature really human, 
that nature was capable ? of course, of progressive im- 
provement and knowledge. 

Johnxvii. 3. "And this is life eternal, that they might 
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom 
thou hast sent." The true God here seems to me 
plainly not to be opposed to, or contrasted with Christ ; 
but as every where else, in case this expression is used, 
opposed to idols. In the verse preceding, Christ says, 
6i Thou hast given me power over all flesh, that thou 
Brightest bestow eternal life upon all whom thou hast 
given me," i. e. both Gentiles and Jews. He proceeds ; 
< 4 This is eternal life, that they might know thee the on- 
ly true God, {the only God f and true God, the Greek is 



133 



capable of being rendered, as to sense,) and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." Now what is there here, differ- 
ent from that which we preach and inculcate every Sab- 
bath ? Do we not teach that there is one only, living and 
true God ? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners ? 
And do we not insist, that eternal life is connected with 
the reception of these truths ? I really see no more diffi- 
culty here, than in the text, " God so loved the world, 
that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever be- 
lieveth in him should not perish but have everlasting 
life." 

1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6. " As concerning, therefore, the eat- 
ing of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, 
we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that 
there is none other god but one. For though there be 
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as 
there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is 
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we 
in him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things and we by him." I have cited several verses for 
the sake of introducing the context. From this it is 
plain, that the one God, the Father, here, is not placed 
in opposition to Christ, but to the lords many and gods 
many of the heathen. If you insist that the one God is 
in opposition to Christ, or excludes him ; then, for the 
same reason, as Christ is the one Lord xvpiog) you 
must insist that it is in opposition to the Lordship (xvpid- 
of the Father ; and of course denies the Lordship of 
Creation to him. It is plain however, according to my 
apprehension, that God and Lord here are mere syno- 
nymes, (See verse 5th, where Xeyo[ievoi &eol is explain- 
ed by ®eoi no\%OL and xvpioi 7io/l/loi.) Nothing is plain- 
er than that xvpiog is a common title of God, in the Old 
Testament and the New. 



134 



Moreover, what is predicated of the one God and one 
Lord, here is the same ; viz. they are the author and 
preserver of all things. The use of the preposition 5ta> 
in cases of this nature has already been the subject of 
remark. 

The nature of the whole case shews, that the apostle 
places the object of the Christian's worship in opposition 
to the heathen or idol gods. What then is that object? 
The one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ ; 
who are the authors of all things, and all things are for 
them. The passage evidently holds out Christ to be in 
the same manner the object of the Christian's worship, as 
the Father is. And as the apostle seems to me simply to 
assert the unity of God, in opposition to idols, I am not 
able to perceive how the divinity of the Saviour is im- 
peached by it, any more than the Lordship of the Father 
is impeached, by making Christ the one Lord. To em- 
brace my view of the whole passage in a brief para- 
phrase ; 6 Idols are nothing; there is but one God. There 
are indeed among the heathen such as are called gods 
(fayofievoL @fot 3 ) who comprise gods and lords many ; yet 
Christians have only one object of worship — one God 
and Lord.' 

John x. 35, 36. " If he called them gods, unto whom 
the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be bro- 
ken ; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, 
and sent into the w T orld, Thou blasphemest ; because I 
said, I am the Son of God ?" Christ had previously said, 
" I and my Father are one." At this the Jews took up 
stones to stone him, " because being a man, he made 
himself God." It is perfectly clear, that the Jews fre- 
quently understood, or pretended to understand, his affir- 
mations respecting himself, to amount to assertions that 
he was truly divine. In this case however, it is said that 



135 



Jesus repelled such an interpretation of his words, by an 
explanation which shows that he would apply to himself 
the word God only in an inferior sense. 

I am not satisfied, that the passage requires this 
exegesis. The reply of Jesus is evidently argumen- 
turn ad hominem, "If the Old Testament, (the divine 
authority of which you admit,) calls them gods, to whom 
the word of God was addressed, (Ps. lxxxii. 6,) i. e. the 
magistrates of the Jews ; how much more proper is it, 
that I, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into 
the world, should call myself the Son of God." If you 
are not offended, when your Scriptures bestow the title 
of Elohim upon civil magistrates merely ; much less is 
there reason to be angry, when I, whom God hath dis- 
tinguished from all others, made preeminent above them, 
and sent into the world on the designs of mercy, should 
call myself the Son of God. Verse 37 ; If I prove not 
the truth of these assertions by miracles ; then disbelieve 
them. Verse 38 ; But if I do, believe the proof that 
may be drawn from my miracles, that the Father is in me 
and I in him. Now wherein did Jesus abate at all from 
any thing which he had before said ? This latter ex- 
pression, I do not indeed understand, (though some have 
done it,) as asserting his divine nature in a direct manner 
It is a formula which is used to express the idea, that 
any one is conjunctissimus Deo ; most nearly and affec- 
tionately connected with God. (See 1 John iv. 16, where 
it is applied to Christians ; also verses 12 and 13.) 

In the whole passage, it appears plain to me, that 
Jesus has not asserted any thing, which could not be 
predicated of his incarnate or human nature as sustaining 
the office of Messiah. He had called God his Father ; 
and, as the Jews supposed, in a peculiar and appro pri- 



136 



ate sense. But it did not follow, that by this term he 
meant to assert his divine nature. Rather the contrary- 
appears. " Saj ye of him whom the Father hath sanc- 
tified and sent into the world," i. e. the Son of God, &c. 
Jesus then does not undertake to answer the question, 
whether he is truly divine ; but simply to vindicate the 
language which he had used, against the accusations of 
the Jews. " If your magistrates are called Elohim, is it 
presumption in me to call myself the Son of God ?" This 
leaves the question unagitated as to his divine nature ; 
but vindicates the language which he had used, against 
the malignant aspersions of the Jews, by an argument 
from their own Scriptures. 

It shows indeed, that the term " Son of God," does 
not appropriately designate Christ as divine, but as the 
incarnate Mediator ; — as him whom the Father hath sanc- 
tified and sent into the world. Did the Father sanctify 
and send into the world his Son as GOD, who is infinitely 
perfect and immutable ? As Mediator, as Messiah, Christ 
was sent into the world ; as Son he filled, and acted in, 
a subordinate capacity; how then can his being Son 
prove him to be divine ? Son of God indeed, by usage, 
has become a kind of proper name; and in this view, de- 
signates occasionally a distinction in the Godhead, which 
I believe to be eternal. But this is only an occasional 
and secondary use of, it. Commonly and appropriately, 
it designates the incarnate Messiah, as born in a manner 
supernatural, (Luke i. 35, comp. iii. 38;) as the special 
object of divine love, (Mat. xvii. 5. — Col. i. 13. — John iii. 
35 ;) and as exhibiting the best and highest resemblance 
of the Father, (Col. i. 15.— Heb. i. 3.— John i. 14.— x. 
38. — xiv. 10.) Would theologians keep these ideas in 
view, I cannot help thinking they might be able to un- 



137 



derstand each other better, and to reason more conclu- 
sively. 

1 have thus summarily touched upon the principal 
texts, which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose the 
doctrines which I have been endeavoring to defend. 
Whether 1 have violated the laws of exegesis in doing 
this; and whether you or I depart most from them, in 
explaining the texts which seem to be at variance with 
the opinions that we defend, must be the subject of an- 
other letter* 

I must observe however, before I close this letter, 
which contains all that I have at present to advance, in re- 
gard to the particular doctrines that your Sermon exhib- 
its, that I do not omit making observations on the rest of 
the Sermon, because I accede either to many things which 
you profess to believe, or to the mode in which you have 
represented the sentiments of Trinitarians. The manner 
in which you accuse us of treating the moral attributes 
of God ; your appropriating to yourself and your party 
the exclusive belief in all that is amiable and excellent 
in the Deity, (pp. 15 — 18;) your assertion that the re- 
proaches which you are obliged to encounter are occa- 
sioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the dishonored 
goodness and rectitude of God, (p. 18 ;) the manner in 
which you state our views of the atonement, and appro- 
priate to your party only many important things in which 
we all agree, (pp. 18 — 21 ;) the appropriation also to 
Unitarians only, of many views respecting the love of 
God, rational zeal in religion, and the benevolent virtues ; 
and the intimations that we are in opposition to all that 
is excellent, and rational, and worthy of belief; I must be 
permitted to say, do not seem to me well adapted to con- 
ciliate, nor very consistent w 7 ith your declaration, (p. 24,} 
18 



138 



when you say, " Charity, forbearance, a delight in the 
virtues of different sects ; a backwardness to censure and 
condemn .... are virtues .... which we admire and re- 
commend." But, my dear Sir, I will not trust myself one 
moment on this ground. I am sure, that a sober review 
of your discourse, in prospect of your accountability to 
God, for the manner in which you have represented and 
treated so large a portion of the Christian community in 
this country, (some of whom, at least, are accustomed to 
think and reason for themselves, though they cannot 
agree with you ;) a review after the heat of the occa- 
sion is past, that prompted such representations, and in- 
duced you to place us in attitude so debasing and repul- 
sive ; will give you more acute sensations than any thing 
which I can say would inspire, or that [ could even wish. 
I do not know but I may betray similar excitement in 
my remarks. But if I have attempted to hold you, or 
Unitarians up to ridicule ; if I have misrepresented your 
sentiments ; if I have charged you with treating Jehovah 
as the heathens did Jupiter, or endeavoured to frame my 
arguments so as to captivate and lead away the unwary 
and unthinking ; or made one single effort to use the ar- 
gument urn ad invidiam ; or appealed to human authori- 
ties to decide the question between us ; appealed to any 
thing but the sober rules of exegesis ; then I desire to 
know it, and be humbled for it. I will not say that I 
have not transgressed in any of these particulars; for 
who that knows the human heart does not know that it 
is deceitful ? But I can say sincerely, I did not mean to 
transgress ; and that I will, with all my heart, thank the 
man, who in the spirit of Christian love will point out 
my error, and show me wherein I have written in such 
a way as to endanger or render repulsive the cause 



139 



which I am advocating. That cause I believe to be just ; 
and 1 should regret to employ any devices, management, 
or stratagem, or any unfairness to defend it. What other 
real interest have we but to know the truth ? And what 
but simple argument can lead us to it ? 

I retire then, for the present, from all the field of re- 
view which the remainder of your Sermon presents ; 
hoping that this remainder may fall into abler and better 
hands than mine ; that it may be thoroughly sifted by 
some one, who has more health, and more leisure than 
I enjoy; and who will rest his whole defence on the 
simple basis of the word of God, interpreted by the 
laws which reason prescribes. Should not this be the 
case; I may hereafter resume and continue these re- 
marks, so as to comprise ail the topics which your Ser* 
mon presents. 



LETTER V. 

Reverend and Dear Sir, 
In p. 14 of your Sermon, you inform us of the metta 
od in which you explain those passages which seem to 
speak of the divine nature of Christ. The paragraph 
is as follows : 

u I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three 
texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not 
very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to 
him. To these we offer one plain answer. We say, that it is one of 
the most established and obvious principles of criticism, that language 
is to be explained according to the known properties of the subject to 
which it is applied. Every man knows, that the same words convey 
very different ideas, when used in relation to different beings. Thus, 
Solomon built the temple in a different manner from the architect 
whom he employed : and God repents differently from man. Now, 
we maintain, that the know n properties and circumstances of Christy 
his birth, sufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of God 



140 

as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing te 
God all his power and offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, 
we say, oblige us to interpret the comparatively few passages, which 
are thought to make him the supreme God, in a manner consistent 
with his distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty to explain such 
texts, by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human 
beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine na- 
ture, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God's 
fulness. These latter passages we do not hesitate to modify, and re- 
strain, and turn from the most obvious sense, because this sense is op- 
posed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate ; 
and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no 
greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which are 
thought to support the Godhead of Christ." 

I must hesitate however to adopt this principle, with- 
out examining its nature and tendency. On the suppo- 
sition that you admit the Bible to be a revelation from 
God, as you aver, permit me to ask whether it is the 
object of a revelation to disclose truths which are not 
known, or are insufficiently established ; or whether it is 
the object of a revelation to disclose truths already 
known and established ? If you answer, The latter ; 
then your answer denies, of course, that it is a Revela- 
tion. What the book of nature exhibits, the Scriptures 
do not reveal Is there then, any thing in the Scriptures, 
which the book of nature does not exhibit? If you con- 
cede this; then I ask, in regard to that unknown thing 
which is revealed^ How are we to obtain any notion res^ 
pecting it ? E- g. the resurrection of the body is reveals 
ed. Now it is a known property of the human body to 
corrupt and perish. Shall I construe a passage of Scrip- 
ture then in such a manner as to contradict this known 
property ? If not, then I can never suppose the resur- 
rection of the body to be revealed. I however do con- 
strue it differently — following the obvious assertion of 
the sacred writers, and not allowing myself to force a 
constructive meaning upon their language. Yet^ if \ uiit 



141 



derstand you, I am at liberty, " to restrain, and modify, 
and turn the words from their most obvious sense," be- 
cause this sense is opposed to the known properties of 
the matter of which our bodies are composed. 

The case is just the same, in regard to any other fact 
or doctrine. What I know already of a thing is, if you 
are correct, to " modify, restrain, and turn from their 
obvious sense," the words which are employed in reveal- 
ing them, because what is revealed I suppose to be at 
variance with some known doctrines or properties. Is 
there not room here, for great caution, and great doubt, 
as to the correctness of your principle ? 

According to this principle, moreover, the Scriptures 
are to be construed very differently, by persons of differ- 
ent degrees of knowledge. One man knows the proper- 
ties of things far more extensively than his neighbor. 
He sees that what is revealed may consist with these 
known properties ; but his neighbor, who lacks this know- 
ledge, is unable to perceive the consistency of revelation 
with what he knows; either because his knowledge does 
not qualify him to judge, or because what he thinks he 
knows, he is really ignorant of. The same text in the 
Bible therefore, may be received by one, and rejected 
by the other, as a part of Revelation. The measure of 
a man's knowledge consequently, cannot be a proper 
rule, by which we may test the meaning of Scripture. 

But you will say, " I can never believe in the reality 
of a revelation, which contradicts my reason." I accede ; 
on the supposition that reason is understood in a proper 
sense. And here is the very place where I find the 
greatest difficulty with your theory of interpretation. 
You do not carry your objections back to the proper 
place. If God manifest in the flesh be an absurdity, a 



142 



palpable contradiction — " an enormous tax upon human 
credulity," as you aver 5 then the claims of the book 
which asserts this, are, no doubt, to be disregarded. 
What is palpable contradiction, we certainly can never 
believe. 

But in determining what the Scriptures have taught, 
we have no right to say, that because this or that doc- 
trine is repugnant to our views, therefore we will " mod- 
ify and restrain, and turn from the obvious sense," the 
words in which it is conveyed. The rules of exegesis 
are not a mass of wax, which can be moulded, at plea- 
sure, into any shape which we may fancy. We do as 
great violence to reason — to the first principles of all 
reasoning, when we violate them, as when we admit ab- 
surdities to be true. 

In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that 
clear passages relating to the same subject, are to be 
adduced to ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been 
simply called GW ; I should allow, that this term might 
be explained by its use as applied to inferior beings. But 
when the sacred writers themselves have explained the 
meaning which they attach to it, by telling us that he is 
the God who created and governs the world; who is om- 
niscient and eternal; the object of religious worship and 
prayer ; God over all, or supreme God ; (not to mention 
"the true God," and the " great God;") there is no law 
of exegesis, no method of interpretation which can fritter 
away the meaning, that is not absolute violence — an in- 
fringement of the fundamental principles of all interpreta- 
tion, an abandonment of the first principles of our reason. 
It does appear to me therefore, that my only resort in 
such a case is, to reject their authority, if I disbelieve the 
doctrine. To say that they did not mean to teach, what 



143 



they most obviously have taught, I cannot ; must not. 
No book can be understood ; no writer can be interpret- 
ed at all, by such a rule of exegesis, without forcing upon 
him the opinions of his readers. My system of philoso- 
phy, we will say, differs from yours. What you view to 
be a palpable contradiction and absurdity, I view as ra- 
tional and consistent. This, we know, is not an uncom- 
mon fact. In reading a writer then, that respects the 
subject of our differing opinions, you hold yourself bound 
to construe him so as to save all that appears to you con- 
tradictory, and absurd ; and I interpret him, just as his 
language obviously means, by the common laws of exege- 
sis, which do not depend on philosophy. This writer then, 
has two different meanings, according to us, in the same 
passage. Is this so ? Can it be ? Or rather are not the 
laws of interpretation independent of you or me ? If not, 
how can the meaning of any writer be ever obtained ? 

You and I differ, as to what John has taught in the 
first chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him, 
with the full conviction that I cannot determine a priori, 
in all respects, what the nature of God and Christ is ; and 
with the belief that John wrote what is a revelation from 
heaven. I read John, and interpret him just as I do any 
other author, ancient or modern, by the general rules of 
interpretation modified oy the special circumstances and 
dialect in which he wrote. I am as well satisfied, that 
he meant to assert the truly divine nature of the Logos, 
as I am that he has made any assertion at all. I receive 
this assertion therefore, as declaring a fact, which I 
ought to believe ; and which, if I admit his inspiration, 
I must believe. In the same manner, I treat all other 
passages which respect this subject. I come in this way 
to the conclusion that Christ is truly divine ; that he has 



144 



a human and divine nature so united, (I undertake not 
to tell in what manner,) that he speaks of either nature 
as himself. The passages which seem to imply his in- 
feriority, I find to be capable of explanation without 
contradiction, or doing violence to the language, by the 
obvious fact that he has two natures united, which the 
sacred writers seem to me so plainly to inculcate. In 
this way, I find one consistent whole. I save the laws 
of exegesis. I admit, indeed, on the authority of revela- 
tion, doctrines which natural religion never taught ; but 
why should not a revelation teach something which natural 
religion did not ? 

Here then I take my stand. 1 abide by the simple 
declarations of the JVew Testament writers, interpreted 
by the common laws of language. My views reconcile 
all the seeming variations of description, in regard to 
Christ, without doing violence to any. I can believe and 
do believe, that the sacred writers are consistent, with- 
out any explanation but such as the laws of interpreta- 
tion admit and require. 

On the other hand; when you read the first of John, 
you say, The known properties of Christ must modify 
the description. How then are those properties known ? 
By the same writer 5 the same authority ; the same re- 
velation. But what can give to one part of John's book 
any more credit than to the other part ? You will say, 
you can understand better how Christ can be inferior to 
God, than how he can be divine. Granting this might be 
the case — is a revelation merely to teach us things which 
are obvious ; or may it not disclose those which are 
more difficult, and cannot be discovered by unassisted 
reason ? If the latter ; how can you aver, that Christ 
may not be revealed as a divine person ? To show a 



145 



priori that this is impossible, or absurd, is really out of 
the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing 
for or against this fact. The simple question then is$ 
What has John said ? not what your philosophy may 
lead you to regard as probable or improbable. And I 
must be allowed to say again, If John has not asserted 
Christ to be truly divine, I am utterly unable by the 
laws of exegesis, to make out that he has asserted any 
thing in his whole gospeL 

If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a 
human and divine nature, is " an enormous tax, on human 
credulity," I shoul d certainly reject the authority of John. 
To violate the laws of exegesis in order to save his cred- 
it, I could regard as nothing more than striving to keep 
up a fictitious belief in divine revelation. It is what I 
cannot do ; and what no man ought to do. It w r ould be 
impossible for me, with your views, to hesitate at all 
about giving up entirely the old idea of the divine inspi- 
ration and authority of the sacred books. How can they 
be divine, if they teach palpable absurdities ? And that 
they do teach what you call palpable absurdities, I feel 
quite satisfied can be amply proved from the simple ap- 
plication of the laws of interpretation) that are establish- 
ed on an immoveable basis. 

You have however, undertaken to vindicate your 
method of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the 
necessity of interpreting several unlimited assertions in 
respect to Christians^ in the same way as you do many in 
respect to Christ. " Recollect," you say, w the unquali- 
fied manner in which it is said of Christians, that they 
possess all things, know all things, and do all things" And 
again, in order to show how we may " modify and restrain 
and turn from the obvious sense*" the passages that res- 



146 

pect the divinity of Christ ; you say, " It is our duty to ex- 
plain such texts, by the rule which we apply to other 
texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are 
said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and 
possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fulness." 

I have already examined sufficiently the manner in 
which the Bible calls men gods. There is and can be 
no mistake here ; for instead of attributing to them 
divine attributes, it always accompanies the appel- 
lations with such adjuncts as guard against mistake. It 
does not call them God ; and then add, that the God is 
meant, who is the Creator of the Universe. 

Nor does the New Testament, (your sole Statute 
book,) any where call men God. Will you produce the in- 
stance ; unless it be in the case of Christ, which is the case 
in question ? But that the appellation here is bestowed 
under circumstances totally diverse from those, in which 
it is applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too 
obvious to need further explanation. The Hebrew word 
SD\iSk (Elohim) had plainly a latitude more extensive, 
i. e. it was capable of a greater variety of use, than the 
Greek w T ord @ao$. Can you produce from the Greek 
Scriptures, i. e. the New Testament, an instance where 
®6o$ is applied to any man whatever ? 

In regard to the assertion, " that Christians are made 
partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. i. 4,) a mistake 
about the meaning is scarcely possible. " Whereby (i. e. 
by the gospel.) are given unto us," says the apostle, " ex- 
ceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye 
might be partakers of the divine nature" But how ? He 
answers this question. " Having escaped the corruption 
that is in the world through lust." That is, by moral 
purification you will become assimilated to God, or par- 



147 



takers of that holy nature, which he possesses. Does the 
context here afford any ground for mistake ? 

In 1 John ii. 20, Christians are said to have "an unc- 
tion from the Holy one, and to knoiv all things" In the 
preceding verse, the apostle had been describing apos- 
tates, who forsook the Christian cause, because they 
were not sincerely attached to it. The case of real 
Christians, who have an unction from the Holy One is 
different. They "know all things." And what means 
this ? The sequel explains it. " I have not written unto 
you," says he, " because ye know not the truth ; but be- 
cause ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." To 
" know all things" then, plainly means here, to know all 
that pertains to Christian doctrine and duty, so as to 
persevere, and not to apostatise from the truth as others 
had done. 

Is this however asserting, as you affirm in your Ser- 
mon, that Christians are said in " an unqualified manner to 
know all things ?" 

In John xiv. 26, the Holy Ghost is promised to the 
apostles " to teach them all things, and to bring all things 
to their remembrance, whatsoever Christ had said unto 
them." Again, John xvi. 23, the " Spirit of truth is pro- 
mised to guide the disciples into all truth ;" and in 1 John 
ii. 27, the anointing which Christians have received, is 
said to "teach them all things." In all these cases, the 
context leaves no room to doubt, that " all things essen- 
tial to Christian doctrine and practice" is meant, No 
person, I presume, ever understood these passages as 
meaning that the apostles or Christians should be en- 
dowed with omniscience. 

Yet in the other case, where Christ is asserted to be 
God, the context is such, that the great body of Chris- 



148 



tians in every age have understood the sacred writers as 
asserting that he was truly divine. Is there no differ- 
ence between the two cases ? You make them indeed 
the same, in respect to the principle of interpretation. 
To my mind the difference lies in this ; that in the one 
case the adjuncts prevent you from ascribing omniscience 
to Christians ; in the other they lead you necessarily to do 
so, unless you " turn their meaning from the obvious 
sense" so far, as to transgress the fundamental maxims 
of interpreting language. 

In 1 Cor. iii. 22, the apostle says to the Corinthian 
churches, "All things are yours and the same apostle 
speaks of himself, (2 Cor. vi. 10) as " having nothing and 
yet possessing all things." In the first case, the context 
adds, " Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the 
world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to 
come— all are yours ; and ye are Christ's i. e. simply, 
(when the phraseology is construed as elsewhere,) let 
no man glory in this or that particular teacher ; all 
teachers belong to the Church, and all things in the pre- 
sent and future world will minister to the good of the 
church ; why should you covet exclusive, individual pos- 
sessions, when you have an interest in the whole ? Re- 
frain therefore, from the spirit of jealousy and conten- 
tion. 

The second case is merely antithesis. The apostle 
evidently asserts, (compare the context,) that although 
he has little indeed of this world's good, yet he possess- 
es a far more excellent and satisfactory good, in com- 
parison of which ail else is nothing. In the same sense, 
we every day speak of a man's all ; meaning that which 
he most desires and loves best. 

I can no more see here, than in the other instances 



149 



already discussed, why you should affirm, that Christians 
are said " in an unqualified manner to possess all things." 

One expression still remains. In Eph. iii. 19, the 
apostle exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians at 
Ephesus might " be filled with all the fulness of God." 
By comparing this expression, as applied to Christ in 
Col. i. 19.— ii. 9, with John i. 14, 16, and Eph. i. 23, it 
appears evident, that by the fulness of God is meant the 
abundant gifts and graces which were bestowed on 
Christ, and through him upon his disciples ; John i. 16 — 
Eph. i. 23. When Paul prays therefore, that the Church 
at Ephesus might be " filled with the fulness of God 
he prays simply, that they might be abundantly replen- 
ished with the gifts and graces, peculiar to the Christian 
religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the 
principle of exegesis in question ? 

I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in 
which you have embarked, and the principles by which 
you explain away the divinity of the Saviour must lead 
most men who approve them, eventually to the conclu- 
sion that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not 
oblige us to belief or obedience. I do not aver, that they 
will certainly lead you there. The remains of your former 
education and belief, may still serve to guard you against 
the bolder conclusions of some of your brethren, who 
have not been placed under instruction such as you en- 
joyed, in early life. You have more serious views of the 
importance of religion, than many, perhaps most of those 
who speculate with you. Consistency too, will afford 
strong inducement not to give up the divine authority of 
the Scriptures. Yet many of your younger brethren 
have no inconsistency to fear, by adopting such views. 
Deeming what you have publicly taught them to be true. 



150 



viz., that it is " no crime to believe with Mr. Belsham," 
who boldly and plainly declares, that the Scriptures are not 
the word of God ; feeling the inconsistency, (as I am cer- 
tain some of them will and do feel it,) of violating the 
fundamental rules of interpretation, in order to make the 
apostles speak as in their apprehension they ought to 
speak ; and unable to reconcile what the apostles say, 
with their own views ; they will throw off the restraints 
which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility of 
the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them sim- 
ply on the ground, on which they place any other writ- 
ings of a moral and religious nature. 

I make no pretensions to uncommon foresight, in re- 
gard to this subject. I certainly do not say these things 
with invidious designs, and for the sake of kindling the 
fire of contention. Very far from it. On the contrary ; 
I believe that the parties now contending here will have 
no quiet, until this ground be openly taken, on your part. 
For myself, I view it as incomparably more desirable in 
every point of view, that the authority of the Scriptures 
should at once be cast off; and its claims to divine inspi- 
ration rejected ; than that such rules of exegesis should 
be introduced, as make the Scripture speak, nolens vo- 
lens, whatever any party may desire. Avowed unbelief 
in the divine authority of the Scriptures can never con- 
tinue long, in the present day of light and examination. 
Such a state of things, may pass away with the genera- 
tion who act in it. But it is a more difficult matter to 
purge away the stain, which Christianity may contract 
by violated laws of interpretation: because those who 
indulge in such a violation profess to respect the Chris- 
tian religion, and to acknowledge its divine original. 

In making these observations, on the nature and prob- 



151 



able consequences of your system of exegesis, which ex- 
plains away the Deity of Christ; I cannot think that I 
am building castles in the air, to amuse my own imagin- 
ation. For ten years past, I have been called, every 
week, to duties which necessitated me to be conversant 
with the history of exegesis, as it has appeared in Ger- 
many ; a country which in half a century has produced 
more works on criticism and sacred literature, than the 
world contains besides. About fifty years since, Semler, 
Professor of Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and pub- 
lish on the subject of interpretation, in a manner that 
excited the attention of the whole German Empire. The 
grand principle, by which he explained away whatever 
he did not think proper to believe, was that which has 
been called accommodation. He maintained, that the 
apostles and the Saviour often admitted representations 
and doctrines into their instructions, which were calcu- 
lated merely for the purpose of persuading the Jews, be- 
ing accommodated to their prejudices ; but were not in- 
tended to be a general directory of sentiment. In this 
way, whatever was inconsistent with his own views, he 
called accommodation; and thus at once expunged it 
from the list of Christian doctrines. 

Semler's original genius and great learning soon gave 
currency to his views in Germany, where a system of 
theology and exegesis had prevailed, which in not a few 
respects needed reformation. Since his time, a host of 
writers, (many of them with exalted talents and most 
extensive erudition,) have arisen, who have examined, 
explained, modified and defended the doctrine of accom- 
modation. The more recent shape of it is, to solve all 
the miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considera- 
tions which are affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and 



152 



ignorance of antiquity in general, and in particular of the 
sacred writers themselves. Thus, with Eichhorn, the ac- 
count of the creation and fall of man, is merely a poeti- 
cal, philosophical speculation of some ingenious person, 
on the origin of the world and of evil. (Urgeschichte, 
passim.) So, in regard to the offering up of Isaac by 
Abraham ; he says, " the Godhead could not have re- 
quired of Abraham so horrible a crime ; and there can 
be no justification, palliation, or excuse for this pretend- 
ed command of the Divinity." He then explains it. A- 
braham dreamed that he must offer up Isaac, and accor- 
ding to the superstition of the times regarded it as a di- 
vine admonition. He prepared to execute the mandate, 
which his dream had conveyed to him. A lucky acci- 
dent, (probably the rustling of a ram who was entangled 
in the bushes,) hindered it : and this according to an- 
cient idiom, was also the voice of the divinity. (Biblio- 
thek. Band i. s. 45, &c.) 

The same writer represents the history of the Mo- 
saic legislation at mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Mo- 
ses ascended the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, (how 
he found wood on this barren rock, or raised it to the 
top, Eichhorn does not tell us,) a fire consecrated to the 
worship of God, before which he prayed. Here an un- 
expected and tremendous thunder storm occurred. He 
seized the occasion, to proclaim the laws which he had 
composed in his retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah; 
leading the people to believe that Jehovah had con- 
versed with him. Not that he was a deceiver ; but 
he really believed that the occurrence of such a thunder 
storm was a sufficient proof of the fact, that Jehovah had 
spoken to him, or sanctioned the work in which he had 
been engaged. (Bibliothek. Band. i. Theil 1, s. 76, &c.) 



153 



' The prophecies of the Old Testament are, according to 
him, patriotic wishes, expressed with all the fire and el- 
egance of poetry, for the future prosperity, and a future 
deliverer of the Jewish nation. (Propheten. Bibliothek. 
Einleit, passim.) 

In like manner, C. F. Amnion^ professor of theology 
at Erlangen, tells us, in respect to the miracle of Christ's 
walking on the water, that " to Walk on the sea, is not 
to stand on the waves, as on the solid ground, as Jerom 
dreams, but to walk through the waves so far as ths 
shoals reached, and then to swim.' 5 (Pref. to edit, of Er- 
nesti Inst. Interpret, p. 12.) So in regard to the mira- 
cle of the loaves and fishes, (Mat. xiv. 15,) he says, that 
Jesus probably distributed some loaves and fishes which 
he had, to those who were around him, and thus excited 
by his example others among the multitude, who had 
provisions, to distribute them in like manner : (p. 16.) 

Thiess, in his commentary on Acts, explains the mi- 
raculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 
(Acts ii.,) in the following manner : " It is not uncom- 
mon," says he, " in those countries, for a violent gust of 
wind to strike only a particular spot or house. Such a 
gust is commonly accompanied by the electric fluid ; and 
the sparks of this are scattered all around. These float 
about the chamber, become apparent, and light upon the 
disciples. They kindle into enthusiasm at this ; and be- 
lieve the promise of their master is now to be perform- 
ed. This enthusiasm spectators assemble to witness; 
and instead of preaching as before in Hebrew, each one 
uses his own native tongue to proclaim his feelings." 

I have not followed the words through the whole, 
but have given the substance in the two last sentences- 
20 



154 



Such was the outpouring of the Spirit ; and such thrf 
gift of tongues. 

The same Thiess, (Com. on Chap, iii.) represents the 
miraculous cure of the man who was lame from his birth> 
by Peter, in a very singular way. " This man," says he, 
was lame, only according tq report. He never walk- 
ed any ; so, the people believed that he could not walk. 

Peter and John, being more sagacious however, 

threatened him. i In the name of the Messiah,' said they, 
6 Stand up.' The word Messiah had a magical power. 
He stood up. Now one saw that he could walk, To 
prevent the compassion of men from being turned into 
rage, (at his deceit,) he chose the most sagacious party, 
and connected himself with the apostles." 

The case of Ananias falling down dead is thus repre- 
sented by the same writer : " Ananias fell down terrifi- 
ed ; but probably he was carried out and buried, while 
still alive. 

Heinrichs however, who produces this Comment of 
Thiess, relates another mode of explaining the occur- 
rence in question ; which is, that Peter stabbed Ananias ; 
46 which," says Heinrichs, " does not at all disagree with 
the vehement and easily exasperated temper of Peter." 
(Nov. Test. Koppianum, Vol. iii. Partic. ii. pp. 355—- 
357, &c. 

You may smile, my dear Sir, or shudder at these ex- 
planations ; but I am entirely unable to see how they 
imply a greater liberty, than you take with John i. 1., 
and Rom. ix. 5 ; with Heb. i. 8, 9, and many other pas- 
sages. 

Numerous systems of Hermeneutica, i. e. the Art of 
Interpretation, have been written and published in Ger- 
many, on this plan. Meyer, in a very laboured system of 



155 

Hermeneutica of the Old Testament, in two large octavos, 
has a body of rules, by which every thing miraculous is 
to be explained away. He concedes that there is the 
same objection to admitting any one miracle, as to admit- 
ting all. He therefore rejects the whole. So Bauer, 
ia his Hermeneutica ; and a multitude of others. 

In the course of the discussions which these princi- 
ples have excited in Germany, the question about Christ's 
divinity has been entirely forgotten. When the contest 
first began, this point was warmly contested. But the 
fundamental questions, whether the Scriptures are di- 
vinely inspired; and whether the doctrine of accommoda- 
tion can be used, in all its latitude, in interpreting them, 
soon took the place of this. Accommodation has been 
sifted, attacked, defended, explained, moderated, modifi- 
ed, itself accommodated ; so that at last it is nearly driven 
from the ground, and the plain and simple rules of exe- 
gesis are triumphant among the best part of the Ger* 
man critics. 

In the mean time, they have not returned to the prin- 
ciples of their Lutheran Symbol. Very far from it. 
While they allow that John, and Peter, and Paul, did 
believe and teach the doctrine of Christ's divinity and 
of the atonement, they hold themselves under no obli- 
gation to receive them. De Wette, who has recently 
published a System of Theology and is Professor of the 
same at Jena, maintains, that the Pentateuch was com- 
posed about the time of the captivity ; that the Jewish 
ritual was of gradual formation, accessions being made to 
it by superstition; that the book of Chronicles, (which is 
filled with scraps and inconsistencies,) was foisted into 
the canon by some of the priesthood, who wished to ex- 
alt their awn order. His Beitrage, which contained these 



156 



sentiments, was published before the death of Gries- 
bach, and came out recommended by him ; who says, 
; If you object to the young literary adventurer, (De 
Wette,) that he has endeayored to bring Judaism into 
disrepute, my answer is, This is no more than Paul him- 
self has laboured to do. ? (Pref to Beitrage.) 

In his book de morte expiatoria Christi, (the atone- 
ment of Christ,) he represents Christ as disappointed 
that the Jews would not hearken to him as a moral teach- 
er simply ; which was the first character he assumed, 
Christ then assumed the character of a prophet, and 
asserted his divine mission, in order that the Jew r s 
might be induced to listen to him. Finding that they 
Would not do this, and that they were determined to 
destroy him, in order not to lose the whole object of his 
mission, and to convert nesessity into an occasion of giv- 
ing himself credit, he gave out, that his death itself 
would be expiatory. 

Yet De Wette holds a most exalted rank in Ger- 
many. I doubt whether Germany can boast of an ori- 
ental scholar, or a literary man, who has more admirers 
than De Wette. Gesenius of Halle, has spoken of him, 
in a letter recently received, in the highest terms ; and 
selects and recommends him, among all the literati, crit- 
ics and orientalists of Germany, as most deserving of 
special acquaintance and confidence. 

Both of these gentlemen are professors of Divinity in 
German Universities ; both men of great genius, and 
most profound erudition ; men too who stand at the head 
of oriental literature in the German Empire ; not to add 
in the whole world. 

What shall we say now of De Wette? That he is 
aot a Christian ? Surely he would look wjth disdain on 



157 



any man, who should think of such an accusation; and 
tax that man with the highest degree of illiberality and 
superstition. 

Will you say ; " What is all this to us ? We do not 
avow, or defend such opinions." True, I answer ; at 
present, you do not avow them. A short time since they 
did not. But as soon as their numbers increased, so that 
they began to be fearless of consequences ; and their an- 
tagonists urged the laws of exegesis upon them, they 
abandoned the ground of defending the divine authenti- 
city of the Bible, at once. A few years since, the state 
of the question in Germany was very nearly what it now 
is here. At present, the most of the German critics, 
(rejecting accommodation, and casting off all ideas of the 
divine origin of the Scriptures,) are disputing with great 
zeal the questions, Whether a miracle be possible ? 
Whether God and nature are one and the same thing? 
(Schelling, a divine too, being at the head of a great par- 
ty which maintain that they are the same ;) and Whe- 
ther the Jews ever expected any Messiah ? Some time 
ago, their critics maintained that no Messiah was pre- 
dicted in the Old Testament ; but now they question 
even whether the Jews had any such expectation. The 
fact whether Christ rose from the dead, long ago was 
disputed ; and now it would seem, that they have come 
nearly to the end of questions on theology. At least I 
cannot well devise, what is to come next. 

It needs now, only an acquaintance with German rea- 
soners and critics, (a thing which is fast coming in,) to in- 
duce young men to go with them, who set out with your 
maxim, that " to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime." 
No man can read these writers, without finding a great 
deal of excellent matter in them, well arranged, and of 



158 



real utility. I venture to add, no man can read them, 
and ever after take up Priestley, Belsham, Carpenter, 
Yates, Lindsey, or any other of the recent, English Uni- 
tarian writers, as critics, but with disgust. Cappe is the 
only one whom I have seen, that appears to have studi- 
ed his Bible. He was evidently a man of thought, and 
a lover of Biblical study. But the incomparably greater 
acquisitions of the German critics in every department 
of study, spread a charm over their writings, for the lov- 
er of discussion and literature, that is not often found in 
productions of this nature. I must add, that much as 
I differ in sentiment from them, and fundamentally sub- 
versive, of Christianity as I believe their views to be, I 
am under great obligations to them for the instructions 
they have given me; and specially for convincing me 
that we need nothing more than the simple rules of ex- 
egesis, and a candid, believing heart, to see in the Scrip- 
tures, with overpowering evidence, all the substantial 
and important doctrines, which have commonly been de- 
nominated orthodox. 

Such has been the impression on me, from reading 
German writers. And with such impressions I can nev- 
er regret the time that I have spent in studying them. 
Abler advocates than they for the fashionable philoso- 
phy, which is endeavouring to explain away the book of 
God, I do not expect to find. 

Si Pergama dextra 
Defendi pdssent, etiam hac defensa fuissent. 

Able however as they are, my mind returns from the 
study of them with an impression more deep, radical and 
satisfactory than ever before, that the great doctrines of 
the gospel, commonly denominated evangelical or orthodox, 
are the doctrines pf the Scriptures, and are the truth of 



159 



Qod* My views as to the interpretation of particular 
texts, in some cases, have been changed by the study of 
philology and interpretation. I should not rely for the 
proof of doctrines now on some texts which I once thought 
contained such proof. But my impressions of the real 
truth and importance of evangelical doctrines, I can tru- 
ly say, are greatly strengthened. 

Before you pronounce sentence upon the German 
Expositors, whom I have quoted above, I trust you will 
give them a hearing. I cannot think it possible that with 
the maxims in regard to reasoning about the Scriptures 
which you defend, you should not at last go full length 
with the most liberal of them all. The difference be- 
tween their sentiments and yours is immeasurably less, 
than the difference between your sentiments now, and 
those which you avowed, when you first became a preach- 
er of the gospel. A mind that is capable of reasoning 
and thinking in such a manner as yours, must necessari- 
ly, as it seems to me, come to the same conclusions with 
Eichhorn, and Paulus, and Henke, and other distinguish- 
ed men of the new German School, when it begins with 
maxims of reasoning like those which you adopt. 

You may be ready, perhaps, to express your surprise, 
that I should commend the study of such writers, as 
those whom I have quoted. I am well aware, indeed, 
that the serious mind revolts at the glaring impiety of 
such comments as those which I have produced. But 
after all, if a man were to judge and condemn these very 
writers, by a few selections of this nature,, it would be 
hasty. On points which are not concerned with the spe- 
cial doctrines of Christianity ; in illustrating the critical 
and literary history, the philology, natural history, and 
grammatical exegesis, — -every thing literary or scien* 



ibO 



tifical that pertains to the Bible ; who can bear com- 
petition with recent German writers, both orthodox and 
heterodox ? For it is a point that ought to be understood, 
though it seems as yet but little known among us, that 
Germany has recently produced some men of most ex- 
tensive eruditien and excellent talents, who have defend- 
ed the common doctrines of the Reformation. I know 
indeed, that you are an advocate for unlimited research. 
For myself, I have long practised upon these principles. 
And I cannot but think the cautious fears of many of 
those, with whom I agree in sentiment, in respect to the 
limits of study, though honourable to the spirit of piety 
which they cherish, and indicative of real interest and 
fconcern for the prosperity of the church, are not well 
founded. The fundamental principle of Protestantism 
is, that the Bible is ike only rule of faith and 'practice. 
To know what the Bible teaches then, is the great ob- 
ject of all religious knowledge. To understand this, (as 
to acquire every thing else,) study, and diligence are ne- 
cessary. Men are not inspired now, as the apostles and 
primitive Christians were, to understand all truth. Men 
are imperfect, and have imperfect knowledge. No one 
sect, party, or body of men can claim absolute perfection 
of knowledge or virtue. And as a great many points of 
inquiry, (interesting and important ones too,) may be 
managed by men of sobriety, in the use of only their na- 
tural intellect, and their resources of learning ; the man 
who loves the book of God, and desires the most extensive 
acquaintance with it which he can possibly make, will not 
neglect them, or any source of knowledge within his pow- 
er. It was a noble maxim of a heathen, "Fas est ab hoste 
doceri we may receive instruction from an enemy. Chris- 
tians too often forget this ; and permit antipathy to par- 



161 

ticular sentiments to exclude them from all the profit, 
which might be derived from a more enlarged acquaint- 
ance with the writings of opponents. Believing as I do, 
that many, who are arrayed against the sentiments that 
I espouse, are not destitute of sense, or of learning, and 
are not to be despised ; I am inclined always to see how 
they vindicate their cause. If I am not convinced by 
their arguments, I am rendered better satisfied with my 
own, and more able to defend them by such an investiga- 
tion. But if I could not practise upon the noble maxim, 
Fas est ah hoste doceri ; I would at least apply another 
one to vindicate the study of the German writers, and 
even (in proper cases) to recommend it. I would say, 
(as was said in a different connection and for a different 
object ;) Egyptii sunt, spoliemus ; They are Egyptians, 
let us take their spoils. Shall I not accept the good which 
they proffer me ; and proffer me in a more scientific 
manner, and well digested, lucid, established form, than 
I can elsewhere find ? Without hesitation, I answer Yes. 

I do not fail to view the subject in another light. Ev- 
ery student in theology ; every Christian minister ought 
to be established in the truth, and able to " convince gain- 
sayers." How can he do this, if he does not know what 
these gainsayers allege ? Is he to engage in war against 
the foes of truth, without knowing the weapons by which 
his enemies are to assail him ? It is a mistaken system 
of education indeed, which teaches him thus ; which 
thrusts out a young man upon the church, unacquainted 
with the nature of its enemies' assaults, and liable of 
course to become the victim of the first powerful at- 
tack that is made upon him. Without any doubt, pri- 
vate Christians should have little or nothing to do with 
all this ground of dispute ; but it is a shame for a mn> 
21 



162 



ister of the gospel who has the opportunity, not to seize 
every advantage in his power, to render himself as able 
as possible to defend the cause which he has espoused. 

You perceive then my reasons for studying German 
writers, and commending the study of them. Truth has 
nothing to fear from examination. If the sentiments that 
I espouse will not stand the test of investigation, then I 
will abandon them. I never shall willingly embrace any 
sentiments, except on such a condition. But in respect 
to the study of the more liberal, (as they are called,) 
German writers, in the end, I fear no injury to the senti- 
ments denominated evangelical. Exegesis has come, by 
discussion among them, to a solid and permanent science. 
That the Scriptural writers taught what we believe to 
be orthodoxy, is now conceded by their most able expos- 
itors. The person who reads their works, will see what 
the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do with the book of 
God. — and where it will carry the men who entertain it. 
It is a most affecting and awful lesson. But it is an ex- 
hibition which has begun among us. The progress of 
your own sentiments fully illustrates the nature of its ad- 
vancements. A short time since, almost all the Unita- 
rians of New England were 'simply Arians. Now there 
are scarcely any of the younger preachers, who have not 
outstripped you, and become simple Humanitarians. 
Such was the case in Germany. The divinity of Christ 
was assailed ; inspiration was next doubted and impugn- 
ed ; and this is already begun here. Natural religion next 
comes in order ; and the simple question between the 
parties here is soon to be, whether natural or revealed 
religion is our guide and our hope. 

For myself, it is my real conviction that the sooner 
matters come to this issue, the better. The parties will 



163 

then understand each other ; and the public will under- 
stand the subject. 

Believing however as I now do, while my convictions 
remain, I must act agreeably to them. I hope I shall 
never be guilty of exercising an exclusive or persecuting 
spirit. But while my present views last, I cannot look 
with indifference on the great contest, which is pending 
in this part of our country. I must regard the opinions, 
which you have avowed in your sermon, to be funda- 
mentally subversive of what appears to me the peculiar- 
ities of the Christian system. If the doctrine of Christ's 
divinity and humanity be not true, nor that of the vica- 
rious sacrifice of Christ, and pardon by it : if human na- 
ture be not of itself entirely destitute of principles of 
holiness that may fit men for heaven, and does not need 
special regenerating and sanctifying grace : then I know 
not what there is in the Christian system, that very much 
concerns our duty or our interest, that is not taught by 
the principles of natural religion; nor what there is for 
which it is our duty to contend. The great question, at 
present, between you and me is, What does the Bible 
teach, on the subjects proposed. For our answer to this 
question, you and I stand accountable to the Judge of 
quick and dead ; and as ministers of his gospel and in- 
terpreters of his word, we are placed under an awful 
responsibility. If either of us violate the reason which 
God has given us, in our inquiries ; or are led by partial 
views, by passion, by prejudice, by thirst for popularity 
with our friends, or a fear of reproach from those whom 
we are obliged to consider as opponents ; Christ will re- 
quire from us an account of our conduct. When I think 
on this ; and look back and ask myself whether I have 
conducted this whole dispute, with a view to my account? 



164 



and in the fear of God ; I cannot but feel solicitude, lest 
through the deceitfulness of the human heart, something 
may have escaped me which may prove prejudicial, in 
some way or other to the promotion of real truth. If 
you see this, my dear Sir, tell me where and what it is. 
We have no real interest, but to know, believe and obey 
the truth. And supposing truth to be, what it now ap- 
pears to me to be, I cannot suppose otherwise, than that 
you are endeavouring to inculcate principles radically 
subversive of the gospel of Christ. Will you do me the 
justice to believe, that I may have honestly formed such 
an opinion, without taking my faith from Creeds, or 
grounding it on tradition, and without the spirit that 
would establish an Inquisition, or lord it over the con- 
sciences of men, or treat you with disrespect. 

In a word ; with those who have the convictions that 
I possess of the nature and importance of the gospel 
system, it can never admit of a question, whether they 
are to make all the opposition in their power, (provided 
it be done in the spirit of Christian candor and benevo- 
lence,) to the prevalence of sentiments like yours. I 
cannot but view the question between us as amounting to 
this ; whether we shall retain Christianity, or reject all 
but the name ? If I am wrong ; May the Lord forgive 
me, and grant me better views. If you are wrong, 
my heart's desire and prayer to God is, that the same 
blessing may be bestowed on you. 

Allowing that I and those with whom I act are sin- 
cere in our belief, you yourself would say, that we should 
be justly chargeable with the greatest inconsistency, did 
we not feel strong desires to resist the innovations that 
are attempted to be made, in many important points of 
our theology. Permit me to add, that real charity may 



165 



sometimes attribute strong feelings and a deep interest 
on this subject, to ardent benevolence towards those 
whom we think to be in a dangerous condition, rather 
than to party zeal, blind credulity and ignorance, or an 
extirminating and injurious spirit. 

And now to bring these already protracted letters to 
a close, will you permit me respectfully and seriously to 
solicit, that you would look back and review the Sermon, 
which has occasioned these remarks. Have you repre- 
sented the sentiments of the great body of Christians in this 
country correctly ? Have you produced the arguments on 
which they rely ? Have you treated them with respect, 
with gentleness, with tenderness ? Has your simple aim 
been to reason with them, to convince them, and not to 
hold them up in such an attitude as to excite disgust, or 
scorn and derision ? Whatever your aim may have been, 
the fact is, that you have awakened in all those who dif- 
fer from you a deep sensation of an intentional injury on 
your part to their feelings, of contumely, and of misrep- 
resentation of their views. Look then with a Christian 
eye on the unhappy and distracted state of the churches 
in this land, the glory of all lands ! When will our conten- 
tions cease ; when shall we bring a united offering to our 
common Lord ; if men, like you, who stand in eminent 
and responsible stations, treat those whom they profess 
to own as Christian brethren, in such a manner, and strive 
to degrade and render them contemptible ? 

My dear Sir, I do think these are things, which when 
you enter your closet to lift up your soul to God, you are 
bound by sacred obligations to consider. I do not bring 
these as charges against you ; but I speak of the impres- 
sions which your discourse, (universally, so far as I know,) 
has excited in the bosoms of those who espouse the sen- 



166 



timents which you condemn. If then* impressions are 
without reason, the wrong may indeed fall upon them. 
But in reviewing the subjects that have already come 
under my notice, there appears more reason for those 
impressions than a lover of Christian meekness and benev- 
olence can approve. When the hours of excitement and 
the stimulus of party feeling are gone by, you and I shall 
stand at the bar of that divine Saviour, who searches the 
hearts and tries the reins of men. There we shall know, 
whether it will be our condemnation that we have loved 
him and honored him more than he can claim. There 
we shall know, whether we need his atoning blood ; whe- 
ther we are permitted to treat with contumely those who 
place their hopes of salvation in it ; and to teach them 
that the God whom the great body of the faithful in ev- 
ery age have worshipped, is a malignant and detestable 
being. O my dear Sir, this is no trifling matter. We 
are immortal beings. We must live forever ; and our 
eternal destiny is in the hands of that Redeemer, about 
whose dignity and glory we are contending. 

When I think on this, I cannot but feel, that the 
question between us is of deep and radical interest, as it 
respects our eternal salvation. If the God whom I am 
bound to adore, has not only revealed himself in the 
book of nature, but has clearly disclosed his glory in the 
gospel of Christ, and I mistake after all a revelation so 
clear : or induced by party feeling, or erroneous philoso* 
phy, reject the testimony which he has given ; the mis- 
take must be tremendous in its consequences ; the rejec- 
tion will justly incur the divine displeasure. With all 
this subject however, fully before me, I do not hesitate .' 
I cannot doubt respecting it. When I behold the glory 
of the Saviour, as revealed in the gospel, I am constrain- 



167 

ed to cry out with the believing apostle ; " My Lord 
and my God !" And when my departing spirit shall quit 
these mortal scenes, and wing its way to the world un- 
known ; with my latest breath I desire to pray, as the 
expiring martyr did, " Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 



ERRATA. 

The urgency of professional duties, the very limited space of 
time which could be spared from them to be devoted to these Let- 
ters ; and the consequent rapidity with which they were carried 
through the press, while at the same time nearly one half of the la- 
bor of composition was performed, from day to day ; constitute, as 
the writer believes, some apology for several errors of the press 
which escaped detection until it was too late, and for less care in re- 
gard to the style in some cases, than might reasonably be expected 
from one in different circumstances. 

The Errata, which a mere cursory reading has detected, and 
which may be corrected with the pen, are the following : 
Page 29 for 'v7ro<r7rcio-eis read 'vTroTrcco-si^. 

63 emended — amended. 

75 emended — amended. 

83 etXyOtvos — u^v&ivo?. 

98 instead of " attributes, or works, to him," read u attri- 
butes, or works, as belonging to him." 
108 for ^ovccfAti (twice) read Swetfttf, 

111 for "you and I," read " you and me ;" (in a part of the 

edition only.) 
122 (line 11th from the bottom) omit "rational." 
124 (line 14th from the bottom,) for " touch only on that 

which," read " touch only that on which." 
131 u class may found," read " class may be found." 
136 (top line) omit " term." 

138 u or that I could even wish," read w or than I could even 
wish." 



LRB Je73 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, j 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION ( 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



